Talk:Kenneth Westhues/Archive 1

Archive 1

Details about mobbing

This is a biography so it is inappropriate to have a detailed description of mobbing in this article. If the topic is of sufficient importance to include in this encyclopedia, it should be in its own article and not wedged into this article about a sociologist. A brief summary of the topic is appropriate here but nothing more. ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out by editor Penbat on Westhues' Revision history page, on 07:48, 3 October 2012‎, "the core of his work is about mobbing - its about mobbing from his perspective". Furthermore, Westhues' unique theories on mobbing are what distinguish him as a notable academic in the field of Sociology. His peer reviewed academic papers and published books contain original research on mobbing, and deal with the issue in great detail. For the above reasons, I support the position of editor Penbat that the Westhues' page should remain in its current iteration. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal of substantive material

Let's have a discussion before removing long-standing material. Do we want a living and breathing encyclopedia or a sanitized version of "reality?" Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave specific reasons for each of my edits and I think I deserve the courtesy of similarly detailed explanations of why they were reverted, especially when they were done to bring the article in line with important policies such as WP:N and WP:EL that enjoy widespread consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a wonderful page, as is. In the spirit of WP:IAR, I propose we ring in the new year with a page that might inspire a child (or an adult), as opposed to one that would put him or her to sleep. What good is a Wiki bio page, if it omits the essence of who someone is? What good is a Wiki bio page, if it omits the key elements of someone's work? Don't we want pages that might inspire? Well, in that spirit, Happy New Year, Wikipedia! (Why don't we try hammering something out later in the week. Happy New Year, ElKevbo. Sincerely.) One final note for consideration: "The fifth of Wikipedia's five pillars: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules."" Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So you don't have any explanations and propose that we ignore widespread consensus in many areas simply because you want to "inspire a child?" No. We're writing an encyclopedia, not an inspirational children's book.

I look forward to your serious response in a few days. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has provided any serious rationale for retaining material that clearly doesn't belong in this article, I am removing it (again). ElKevbo (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out by editor Penbat on Westhues' Revision history page, on 07:48, 3 October 2012‎, "the core of his work is about mobbing - its about mobbing from his perspective". Furthermore, Westhues' unique theories on mobbing are what distinguish him as a notable academic in the field of Sociology. His peer reviewed academic papers and published books contain original research on mobbing, and deal with the issue in great detail. For the above reasons, I support the position of editor Penbat that the Westhues' page should contain his mobbing checklist. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ElKevbo distorts my assertions, and in a rather snide manner, IMO. From Wikipedia's Encyclopedia page" The word encyclopaedia comes from the Koine Greek ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία,[8] from Greek ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία,[9] and is transliterated enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education": enkyklios (ἐγκύκλιος), meaning "circular, recurrent, required regularly, general"[10] + paideia (παιδεία), meaning "education, rearing of a child",[11] but it was reduced to a single word due to an error[12] by copyists of Latin manuscripts. Together, the phrase literally translates as "complete instruction" or "complete knowledge". Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come. —Didero (An encyclopedia need not be a dry, dull, boring compendium... That anyone would want to exclude his checklist from his bio, defies logic and reason.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Westhues is the subject of this encyclopedia article. That has two consequences relevant to this discussion.

First, this article should be somewhat narrow in scope and shouldn't cover other subjects in significant detail. From our policy regarding what Wikipedia is not: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." A brief description of Westhues's ideas is appropriate to help readers place him into context; a detailed description is not appropriate. If his research topic is notable then it should have its own article; this biography shouldn't be used as a way to insert that information into Wikipedia through some kind of backdoor.

Second, this is an encyclopedia article, not a CV. It is inappropriate to list all of Westhues's publications and it's also inappropriate to use this as a kind of directory to his Internet-available works. It would be very appropriate, however, to briefly describe a few of them if they have been discussed by other reliable sources. It would even be ok to include a brief "Publications" section provided the included materials are indeed significant and should be included in an encyclopedia article (we often limit such lists to publications that themselves already have or merit their own Wikipedia article). But a complete listing or a listing composed solely of materials selected by Wikipedia editors isn't acceptable.

I'm really not trying to pick on you or be a pain in the ass. It's important to keep articles focused in Wikipedia otherwise the entire project becomes a cesspool. Biographies are particularly vulnerable because they can easily be used to unjustly attack or promote the subject. One way we try to prevent that is ensuring that the material included is completely relevant and only included in due weight to the subject. That's all I'm trying to do here. ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Westhues. 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/20110724185410/http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/2007/05/13/workplace-bullying-in-the-academic-world/ to http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/2007/05/13/workplace-bullying-in-the-academic-world/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)