Talk:Oxford Round Table

message: CSULB professor has published an online book about ORT that provides a lot of new and relevant information: http://thugthebook.blogspot.com/2013/06/seven-b-biggest-academic-ponzi-scheme.html It would seem to be very reliable given that it's published by a university professor and contains all of its own supporting documentation.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a book.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted under Talk:F. King Alexander, it does not appear to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and does not meet the requirements of WP:BLPSPS. it was written by a person suing one of the subjects of this article. Bahooka (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Be mindful that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and its bandwidth should not be wasted on matters of rumor or misapprehension. Facts should be presented from a neutral point of view. When presenting controversial material, it should show verification from another neutral source. Absent that, it does not meet Wiki verifiability standards. An exhaustive corporate and/or non-profit history is not a worthy addition to an encyclopedia unless it is particularly noteworthy or newsworthy and not part of the day-to-day efforts of administrating a corporation or non-profit. Thanks.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragorn8392 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop deleting my comment. There is nothing remotely against policy about what I wrote. Editors must have the ability to discuss sources on the talk page. Your repeated deletions of my comment are entirely inappropriate.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me why you keep posting the same link, and exactly how the link contributes to the article. The link cannot be used as a reference. If you want to discuss the blog as a reference, move the discussion to the bottom of the page and create a new heading for it. Telling people to read a blog does not help the article, and the Talk page is only for discussion on how to improve the article. The blog is not New Information, and your continuous efforts to post about it reeks of puffery and self-promotion. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "posting the same link". Are you referring to my restoring your repeated deletion of my comment, which includes a link to "Thug:The Book"? If so, that's not posting the same link; that's reverting your vandalism. You don't get to dictate how Wikipedia Talk pages are organized chronologically, and you don't get to delete other editors' discussion of potential sources.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your definition of 'vandalism' is different than our earth definition of vandalism. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia definition of a number of things is different than the earth definition :).  Aragorn8392, I noticed you had not been properly welcomed to Wikipedia and given links to get a better understanding of processes here.  I just posted those links to your talk page.  You may find them helpful while working on these articles. Regards, Bahooka (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am already aware of those links and their content, so there is no need to point to them. Thanks for being so overtly welcoming, I suppose. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Information

message: The first sentence states that "run by a California-based educational organization, incorporated until recently as a for-profit and a not-for-profit corporation in Kentucky, and currently as a not-for-profit in Illinois."  I believe the first sentence should be a statement of what it is, not what it used to be.  I recommend the following wording for the first sentence: "The Oxford Round Table is a series of interdisciplinary conferences organized and run by a California-based educational organization, incorporated as a not-for-profit in Illinois.[with the citation]".  Any objections? Bahooka (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object to this edit on the grounds that ORT's corporate status changes frequently between for-profit and non-profit, popping up and then dissolving in one jurisdiction after another, suggesting an ongoing attempt to evade taxation. This information is no more stable than the price info. If it goes in, then the entire history should be in, not just the latest incarnation.Pokey5945 (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While the corporate status changes should remain in the article as is typical on Wikipedia, I feel the very first sentence of the article is not the proper place for past corporate statuses.  To state that the various incorporations suggest "an ongoing attempt to evade taxation" is POV and problematic. Bahooka (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the instability of ORT's corporate status,perhaps it's best to leave it out of the first sentence altogether. Re the tax evasion, that's my working hypothesis. I'm open to hearing alternate hypotheses.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree to keep the corporate status out of the first sentence.  As to why there have been changes in incorporation, I have no idea and for Wikipedia purposes unless there is a reliable source explaining why, I don't really care. Bahooka (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: The last sentence in the introduction is redundant ("It has been accused of misrepresenting...). It belongs in the 'Criticism and litigation' section, thus it should be deleted from the intro. Also, I agree that the various corporate status changes do not belong in the first sentence. It is cluttered and confusing. If the changes reflect some controversy, they belong elsewhere in the article. All that needs to be said in the intro is that it is a not-for-profit run out of Illinois, because all the rest of that stuff is already in or belongs in the Corporate history section. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence of the introduction is fully in conformity with WP:LEAD; the introduction should briefly summarise the content of the sections that follow.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence should be about how it is not officially affiliated and how people seem to be confused by that.  It should not accuse the conference itself by saying it is misrepresenting itself.  There is no proof of that, accusations should remain in the criticism section.Ouattwh (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence doesn't make any accusations; it just summarizes the critique section. That's how it's supposed to work.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Last sentence of lead section

message: Why would you delete conference location information and deem that misleading/POV? Locations are essential in describing any conference, and given that it is called the Oxford Round Table, this information explicates that usage. If you are not sure of existing references as to where conferences were held: 
Harris Manchester College: http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/index.php/view/Content-Main/page/history.html
Peter's College: http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/index.php/view/Content-Main/page/general.html
and http://newsblaze.com/story/20110826052835zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Trinity College: http://www.oxford.roundtable.co.uk/ and http://www.hutchnews.com/Localregional/oxfo
Oxford Union: http://www.elon.edu/e-net/Article/45774
Exeter College: http://www.llu.edu/news/today/today_story.page?id=895 and http://www.blounttoday.com/news/2009/jul/30/pellissippi-state-professor-present-language-resea/
Oriel College: http://www.csse-scee.ca/news/view/20th_annual_international_conference_on_childhood_education and http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/coe/Pages/FacultyPublications2012-2013.aspx
Lincoln College: http://www.washburn.edu/faculty/jmcconnell-farmer/Oxround.htm and http://bluehawk.monmouth.edu/~ttongesa/ORT.php and http://em.fsu.edu/mura/index.cfm/news/dr-audrey-casserleigh-and-jarrett-broder-participate-in-oxford-round-table/
Reverting until you can explain how location is irrelevant. 
Also, there seems to be a stronger consensus for cleaning up the lead sentence. Corporate history information has its own section, and Pokey5945's incarnation of describing the ORT in the lead is confusing and POV. Pokey5945 explicitly said they were trying to push a POV in including that information in the lead, which is unacceptable in an encyclopedic context. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A listing of all the locations where the conferences are held does not belong in the very first sentence of the article (I didn't say anything about misleading POV.)  See WP:LEADSENTENCE.  Having a section in the body is probably acceptable. Bahooka (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I was not being clear. If you look at the edit history, Pokey5945 said they undid an edit because it was misleading/POV, and I was responding directly to that. As for the first sentence, it looks like it is not run by a California-based organization, but by a not-for-profit in the state of Illinois. http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/index.php/view/Content-Main/page/history.html Are there current sources that contradict that it is now run as an Illinois not-for-profit? --Aragorn8392 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly stop pretending to be completely stupid.  Contact information: a rented office in Long Beach, CA.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On the same web site Nomoskedasticity referenced above: "The Oxford Round Table is a not-for-profit organization chartered under the laws of England and Wales as authorized by the Companies Acts of Parliament, 1985-2006. The registered office of which is located in England. A branch of the organization, the Oxford Round Table, North America, Inc., NFP, is registered with the Secretary of State of Illinois as a not-for-profit company located in Illinois, U.S.A., with communication substations in California, Kentucky and New York." Communications direction is not the same thing Nomoskedasticity might be thinking of. For instance, Microsoft is headquartered in Redmond, WA, but it has customer support based out of dozens of different countries. Kindly let me know if I need to dumb that down for you any further, Nomoskedasticity. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm content with the notion that the place where they open their mail and receive their phone calls is the place where they are "based".  We represent the legal stuff sufficiently in the "corporate history" section.  I do find myself wondering whether Shenette has now moved to Louisiana and so the contact information for mail and phone calls might shift accordingly.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go by the contact page, then, the ORT has two bases: in the UK and the US. Should that then be included in the lead sentence? I guess the conference location info would go under the Conferences heading, so I'll just include that over there. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the lead sentence location be changed to "United States", and then sort out the potentially confusing details later on in the article. I don't think there is credible evidence of any UK location, in spite of ORT's web page. The Alexanders appear to have let that registration lapse, just as they did with so many others.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence of a current Illinois registration?  The search results at the Illinois secretary of state include three organisations, and all three are indicated as "dissolved".  On that basis, I don't think we have any credible evidence of anything except for California, so I'd prefer to leave it as is for now.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about that Illinois secretary of state information, Nomoskedasticity. However, I did a similar search on the California Secretary of State site and could not find Oxford Round Table as a registered entity over there either. Am I missing something, or are you judging where it is run out of by differing standards? I think the very nature of an academic conference might be a confusing factor here. The conference has facilitators in the UK and in different states in the US. That's just a part of how conferences work. As to whether the UK registration has lapsed, Pokey5945, have you attempted to call the UK-based number, or do you have any sources saying that the UK registration has lapsed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragorn8392 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1384728351&#result. This is why you should not trust anything on the ORT website.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

text: The link works fine in my browser (Chrome).Pokey5945 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was coming up with a time out at that web site (I also use Chrome.)  You may have the results in cache.  The site works, I just had to do the search again and it came up. It provided the date of incorporation and dissolution, and I added the 2011 date to the text. Bahooka (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Conferences, Lead Sentence

message: Information should be included that contributes to a NPOV, not just criticism. Don't delete added material without going over the points that you find objectionable and why. For instance, if there are three sections edited separately, don't revert back three edits without a reason that explicates each of the three reversions.Aragorn8392 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any material you add requires a reliable source.  If you don't want your edits to be reverted, don't add unsourced material.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The "history" of the Round Table states that it dissolved in 2011, yet it seems to have reared its controversial head once again: http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/index.php/view/Home-Main 76.117.131.169 (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not that the Round Table was dissolved -- it's that that particular corporation was dissolved.  It's a bit of a mystery what the current corporation name is.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford Round Table Not Defunct 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oxford Round Table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229053844/http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk:80/ to http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified