Jump to content

Talk:Quint Studer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Avoid edit warring

[edit]

The subject of this article is possibly controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information. (This statement is adapted from Template: Controversial).--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing some improvements

[edit]

Hi there to anyone watching this page! Over the past few weeks, I've been looking over this article and identifying areas for improvement and now I'm looking for other editors to help look over some suggestions I have and make some changes. As a disclosure: I am working on behalf of, and with input from the Studer Group, Quint Studer's company. Due my COI here, I will not make any edits to the live article myself.

To start, I was wondering how other editors felt about removing the following passages that apply only to the Studer Group from the introduction:

  • "The registered nurse's union, National Nurses United, alleges that Studer Group utilizes management techniques designed to deskill and automate nurse's interactions with patients to fight increasing nurse-to-patient ratios and to replace nurses with lesser-skilled healthcare workers."
  • "Chicago-based Huron Consulting Group acquired Studer Group for $325 million in January 2015."

My thought here is that both apply to the Studer Group, rather than Quint Studer himself, and belong in an article about that subject. To illustrate the difference, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation suit also mentioned in the introduction names Studer as a defendant, making the information about him, rather than his company. If others agree, I'd appreciate assistance removing those details. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quint Studer founded Studer Group and every reference about him indicates that he made all of the management/operational decisions for the company. Do you mind disclosing your conflict of interest?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16912 Rhiannon, I see that you did disclose your conflict of interest. I edited the article to reflect that Studer sold his company. Quint Studer's name has been interchangeable with his company just as Henry Ford or Steve Job are known for their company names.
Thank you Wpwatchdog for editing the article to reflect that Studer sold the Studer Group. I appreciate the comparisons you drew to explain how the company and person can sometimes be interchangeable within the article. However, I'd argue that the introduction should be solely about the person and their own actions within the company, as is the case with both Steve Jobs' and Henry Ford's articles. Of course, this is just my perspective on the issue and in the interest of reaching consensus, I'd like to invite others to offer some input as well as to take a look at some other aspects of the article that seem a little problematic. I'll reach out to see what any editors at WP:BLPN think. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note additional info/edits added to the article that include citations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you have pretty much turned this into an attack page. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Everything is cited including the many positives.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jytdog: would really love to hear your thoughts on the page in more detail, too. I definitely feel that there's a negative skew to the way this article is written (in terms of phrasing and some of the specific details that are included that don't seem to be fully supported by sourcing), as I've mentioned briefly in a post at BLPN, but coming in to this article with a COI, I'd love to get some impartial input before trying to propose any further specific changes or new drafted material.
Also, pinging @David.thompson.esq: who responded at BLPN but hasn't yet replied here, in case he's still interested to take a look. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I just realized that Controversies section has been added today, making this article even more POV than before, to the extent where I feel that it should carry a warning tag. If others agree, would they add that? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And all interested parties will declare any COI as you have done, Rhiannon? I don't mind if all the material that I added to article is moved back to the original placement instead of a controversies section. To me, the controversy section is more than balanced by the many positive sections. When reviewing articles on living people with controversy in their life, the articles often includes a "criticism" section or a "controversy" section. Let me know what you think, Rhiannon.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a step in the right direction to place the critical material back in the context of Mr. Studer's career, but clearly there are other issues here too, so I am still wondering whether a warning tag might be the way to go until impartial editors experienced with BLP issues have had a chance to look. With regards to "all interested parties", so far as I am aware I'm the only person here with a COI, so I'm not quite sure what you're asking me. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the editors pinged haven't had time to come back here, and my original post to BLPN has been archived, I'm going to make an exception to my usual rule of not editing articles where I have a COI, but simply to add a {{POV}} template to the page while I'm looking for impartial editors to comment. I don't take this lightly and I feel that there are enough issues here that it is warranted. I'll also re-post at BLPN. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rhiannon, I will address some of your concerns in the next few days when I have more time. I definitely do not have a COI. I do agree that the article should be neutral.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edits by NorthBySouthBaranof have resolved my concerns. If other editors agree now that the page is no longer POV, then I'd be grateful if someone would remove the tag from the article. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a good portion of the article reads like a puff piece. Some of the puffery is sourced, to the 'Firestarter' article, but some of it traces back to Studer himself (the $50 million investment number, stuff from the company website, from the blue wahoos website). When Rhiannon first raised concerns about the article I asked him/her to provide some sources that unconflicted editors could use to improve the article. That still hasn't really happened, and the article is the worse for it. It is very dependent on the Firestarter source, which itself doesn't bowl me over as a source of high reliability. The lack of sources makes me wonder if this guy is notable enough for an article at all. Otherwise, I do think that taking out original research like the citation to the court docket has been an improvement.

David.thompson.esq (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David.thompson.esq, sorry I've not put forward any sources here, as I'd thought you were asking me to provide sources that showed that Mr. Studer wasn't involved in activities at his company (I explained back at BLPN that there weren't really sources to do that, because it would be trying to prove a negative). I'd be more than happy to provide some additional sources as support for material in this article, and I'm trying to work on that right now. Also, I'd like to propose some new text for the section focusing on his career, to help clarify those details. In terms of him not meeting notability, I believe there are multiple sources that provide a breadth of detail focused on Mr. Studer (some positive, some negative), so I don't think that's a real concern, it's just that a lot of the sources used right now are low quality and not reflective of what's available. (Also, just to clarify, I am a woman: see Rhiannon). 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GPA, etc.

[edit]

The minute details of Studer's high school GPA and university admission are trivial details which don't really add anything to the encyclopedia, and are not found in other similar biographies. I would challenge the user who is edit-warring for inclusion of these details to discuss on this page why they believe the information is relevant and necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my below entry under "Life details". As I noted, you first deleted info without discussing it. You have not verified what is included in the references to see that Studer discloses these details as great accomplishments in his life. Wikipedia articles of notable people do include personal details such as addictions and public criticisms and people like Quint Studer who have overcome adversities . For examples, see Marlee Matlin and Betty Ford - the list would go on and on.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this guy really is notable, as per above. If he is, it is because of what other people think of him, not what he thinks of himself. After all, I consider myself to be the rightful King of England. David.thompson.esq (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He meets the Wikipedia basic criteria for notable people and he is well known in his field.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that the available sourcing here is fairly limited and low-quality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about anyone's high school GPA or the details of their college admission in either of the articles you mention. Unimportant trivia. The relevance of Betty Ford to the Betty Ford Center is self-explanatory. No similar situation exists for this biographical subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK

[edit]

This article should not be used as a coatrack for arguments about Studer Group. If Studer Group is sufficiently notable that we need to extensively discuss its activities, supporters and detractors, that should be done in a separate article about the company which Studer founded and formerly owned — not Studer's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. If he is the owner of the company, it is of direct and immediate relevance to this person. If it is notable, then it has a separate article and the two are linked via WP:SUMMARY style. If the company is marginally notable, it has reasonable (without minute operational detail) discussion in the bio article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life details

[edit]

NorthBySouthBaranof, the details that you deleted are major factors that contributed to Quint Studer's life. He has written and talked these about these details throughout his career as a healthcare consultant. As I added some of the original details about his life, it seems you should have first gone to the talk page to justify your deletion. Please explain how you judge the details as trivial when they were life changing as Studer has explained. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged fact that someone has "written and talked about" something about themselves does not mean all of those things are automatically encyclopedically relevant to a balanced, duly-weighted encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for this article

[edit]

Hi again! Back briefly to get started on providing some better quality sources to support information for this article. Here's a few detailed sources I've turned up in researching so far:

This one is more brief in its mention of Studer, but is a good AP piece on the revitalization of downtown Pensacola and Studer's involvement in that:

There are an awful lot of articles mentioning Studer and discussing his business activities and philanthropy from the Pensacola News Journal, which is understandable given that it's his hometown newspaper. Likewise, Pensacola Today and NorthEscambia.com. These would likely help to cite some specifics but perhaps shouldn't be relied upon for notability. He is also mentioned in a lot of articles from multiple publications in reference to his ownership of the Blue Wahoos, and likewise tends to be mentioned / quoted in articles about healthcare management a lot (see search results at BizJournal). These might be helpful for providing support to mention some of his books and career milestones, but I'll refrain from linking them all here til folks have had a chance to offer their thoughts. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think you can add the links so long as you leave the text as it stands. I am aware that the article needs more updating. It doesn't say that Studer is still with Studer Group. By "better quality sources" do you mean that the ones you included include no criticism? I think the article does have good sources but you found more recent ones. The article has now become more like a press release for Studer. I must say I liked the "rags to riches" quote about him. As I already stated, Studer is definitely notable in his field.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are just a few WP:RS sources I'm suggesting for editors to help beef up support for information that's in the article, per David.thompson.esq's request. As he mentioned (and NorthBySouthBaranof and I agreed) some of the sources currently used aren't that great. These are "better quality" in that they're from well-known publications and not self-published / non-independent sources, vs. existing sources in the article like the Fire Starter Publishing website and Studer Group website. Hope that clarifies! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You list of sources is helpful, User:16912_Rhiannon. If I could suggest, since you seem to be his publicist or something (not that there's anything wrong with that, since you have rightly disclosed your conflict), perhaps you could find a photo of the subject that could be donated to Wikimedia and then be used with the article. Be warned, on uploading to wikimedia you lose most control over the copyright. We can walk you through how that's done. Just as an FYI, I don't care at all about Quint Studer, but I think when a COI person is upfront and discloses COI, that should be supported by non-COI editors by helping with the article to the extent consistent with overall Wikipolicy. You may not get instant satisfaction tho, since we are all unpaid volunteers/nutjobs. David.thompson.esq (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help. Although I'm not Mr. Studer's publicist (just a consultant for Wikipedia to help Mr. Studer and his company approach this the right way), I can look into whether they have any photos they'll be able to release. I've been through the photo release process a fair number of times, so I should be ok there, but thanks for the offer of assistance. Once I have a photo uploaded to Commons (if I can get one), I'll be sure to ping folks here to have it added to the article. Greatly appreciate your note here on how non-COI editors should help with the article, that's certainly how I prefer to proceed: offering suggestions and sources, and letting non-COI editors make the edits they feel are most appropriate. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Career section

[edit]

After 16912 Rhiannon (talk · contribs)'s edits to the draft in response to the constructive feedback here, there is a clear consensus to replace the "Career" section with the draft at User:16912 Rhiannon/Quint Studer career, which I have done. Cunard (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there. Following the discussion on the Talk page last month, I've set about revising part of the Career section for others to review. I've focused just on the Health consultant subsection for now. I'd like to address the Business diversification subsection in a later draft, but the Health consultant section seemed to be particularly disorganized and, while the information is all relevant, it did not flow well. I've tried to remedy these issues in my draft. You can view it in my userspace here:

You'll see that I've divided the information into three areas: Early career, The Studer Group, and Books. I generally followed the same outline as the current version and concentrated on tightening up the writing and summarizing quoted material. I primarily used sources already in the article, as well as a few that I detailed in my last message. I did move the details about Studer's teaching career from the Early life section. To avoid redundancy, I'd ask that editors remove those sentences if my draft is placed in the live article. I also removed the mention of Studer's awards. I think these are best placed elsewhere, and for now, I'd suggest editors put the information under its own heading.

This draft is just a suggestion, so editors can take their time to review it and decide what's best. I also welcome feedback and additional sources, as my aim is simply to improve the article. If my draft appears to be an improvement, I'd ask that someone else move it over—as a paid consultant, I prefer not to edit the article myself. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to the article read like a resume for Studer. It makes it sound like Studer began his speaking career in 2014 but his motivational speaking career began many years ago via Studer Group. Wikipedia does not serve as a forum to promote individuals. Someone else without COI needs to evaluate selection of unbiased citations. Which articles are actually distributed by news media with financial ties to Studer and his affiliated corporations?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wpwatchdog, I absolutely think that it would be best for someone without COI to review what I've put together here and the citations: that's why I'm proposing this draft rather than making any article changes. Let me get back to you on the new media that Studer has financial ties to, I'd be happy to clarify if I can. Overall, I think the aim for a biographical article should be to present a straightforward explanation of a person's life and career, of course, that can mean it ends up feeling a little "resume-like", which is fine so long as it's neutrally written and doesn't avoid any noteworthy negative info or criticisms. That's what I've tried to do here, though I appreciate that others may find wording they'd prefer to adjust. Regarding his speaking career, I actually mention that in the Early career section, so the draft does reflect that he began speaking much earlier than 2014, and in fact started speaking engagements before founding Studer Group. If the wording under Studer Group could be clearer, I'd be happy to tweak it. Does anyone else have any thoughts or feedback? Pinging David.thompson.esq and NorthBySouthBaranof in case either of you are still able to help on this article. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of that should be accepted, it's all promotional, resume-style spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joseph2302. Thanks for weighing in. Can you point to areas that you feel are overly promotional? I'm happy to adjust the language, but the information I've included is hardly spam. It's an accurate description of Studer's career based on sources. In fact, I think if you look at my draft and the live article side by side, you'll see more similarities than differences. The biggest changes are that I've reorganized the information and offered more specific details, such as dates and the particular accomplishments that led to Studer's advancements in his career. I've also removed irrelevant details and quotes such as "He reported that he felt torn by 'the growing demand to spread his gospel of excellence through better leadership and employee satisfaction'". While I invite feedback on the particulars of my draft, I'm confident that the majority of my changes, including the new structure I'm proposing, are an improvement over what's in the current draft and are due more discussion. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically all of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, ok. Are you objecting to the tone of all of it? Let me explain again, the current coverage of his career in the article is confusing, there are parts with weird typos and strange sentence construction, there are some steps missing, and I think some of the included quotes are promotional. So, what I'm trying to do with this draft is write up those details again but in a clearer fashion, removing the unnecessary quotes. If you think that there's now too much detail, I can look at trimming it down. If you think the tone is the issue, I'm happy to review again and see what I can do. I'm just looking for a constructive way forward here... Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16912_Rhiannon in the RfC below, you should have disclosed your COI explicitly, since you are seeking community input and you cannot count on new people to this article reading up the page to identify your COI. Would you please add that disclosure to the RfC statement? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good point! Thanks, Jytdog. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Seeking input on the Career section

[edit]

I'm suggesting a new draft for the Career section (see above) and would like to get editors' input: do you think it is an improvement over the current section in the article? Are any edits needed? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, a disclosure: I am working as a consultant to Mr. Studer and am proposing the draft here on his behalf, so I do have a financial conflict of interest. I won't make any edits to the article myself, so am instead interested in proposing suggestions and drafts here, and discussing with editors. Adding some context to the question for this RfC, I've drafted a new section because the current one is fragmented, with some of Studer's career appearing in the Early life and family section. In addition, some of the writing is not very clear in terms of chronology and there are quotes that feel superfluous. My aim was to update the section so that it reads more smoothly and provides a succinct overview of Studer's career to date. I would be happy to make changes based on any specific feedback or take an alternative approach to updating the current section if the consensus is that the draft isn't an appropriate place to start. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per the discussion above and your request for feedback, two sentence stuck out to me that made the section seems more like a resume, and less like a bio. I would suggest either removing or rewording the following sentences

  • "Studer utilized management techniques that raised patient satisfaction by improving conditions for employees."
  • "Studer began speaking to groups approximately four days a week and expanded to teaching his success methods outside of healthcare, including to small businesses, school districts, and churches."

Hope this helps! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does help, thank you Comatmebro! I think your suggestions sound good and I've reworded and trimmed both sentences. Let me know if you think they need further adjustment or if there's anything else you spot. Thanks 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Happy i was able to help. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposing baseball and investments additions

[edit]

Hi there, thanks to all that reviewed the Career suggestion above. I'm returning to this page to propose some further updates, starting with adding back some details about Studer's ownership of the Blue Wahoos and his investment in downtown Pensacola. With the updates to Career, the article now does not have much of the information that was previously in the Business diversification subsection, including the baseball team and investment in local development.

Rather than keep both of these topics in the same Career subsection going forward, I thought it made sense to organize them into two separate sections called Baseball and Investments. These sections could be placed between the Studer Group and Books sections, or perhaps exist as standalone sections. You can see them here:

Question to editors: I realize there is already a Philanthropy section in the article. Does it make sense to have a separate Investments section as well? I think the nature of Studer's investments make it so there is quite a bit of overlap, though I wouldn't necessarily group something like the maritime park under Philanthropy. I might use a term like impact investing to describe it.

As mentioned before, I am a paid consultant making these proposals on behalf of the Studer Group. I will not be making changes myself due to my COI, so assistance from other editors in reviewing these requests and making changes that are appropriate is appreciated! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick ping to see if editors who looked at the Career rewrite would like to take a peek at this: Wpwatchdog, Comatmebro, Sam Walton, NinjaRobotPirate, Joseph2302, Jytdog. Are any of you interested in looking over these additions? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging here again, to see if anyone can take a look at the above request. Also, I'm wondering if someone would remove the {{POV}} tag now, if it's appropriate to do so? I made a exception to my rule of no direct editing to add the tag earlier this year. Since then, editors have made many improvements to the article and I no longer have the concerns about the article's content that led me to add the tag originally. Can it now be removed? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to advise editors that that 16912_Rhiannon made this inquiry about the POV template and other issues today at the BLP noticeboard. As I opined at BLP/N, this article "appears to be an over-the-top résumé essentially being used as a promotional piece. It seems like a good portion of the content should be removed. So, no, I don't feel the POV template should be removed". Czoal (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Czoal (and Orangemike). You are entitled to your opinion and I do want to hear more about specific things you think should be changed, but I want to share some more background on this article and its development over time first. Here's what the article looked like when I added the POV tag. This was prior to any material I prepared being placed into the entry. Some of my complaints then were that the information was very disorganized and not neutral—some language skewed negative, while phrasing like "a renowned motivational speaker" was overly positive. If you compare this version to the current article, much of the content is the same, it's just reorganized and, in many cases, trimmed down.
To be clear, I didn't initially write this article and the only section I significantly rewrote was the Career section (though I suggested a few improvements to the introduction and Early life sections and requested items focused on the Studer Group be removed throughout the article). Again, I'd like to note that I didn't add much information in my Career section draft, much of what I did focused on organizing the information, fixing various formatting issues and adding specifics for any claims. Here's the before and after for you to compare.
As you can see above, there was an RfC about the Career section when I proposed my draft. The consensus from that was editors accepted my draft and added it into the article. These editors didn’t agree that the content was puffery—that said, I’m totally fine with the section being edited down, the real concern was the negative tone that previously existed. Everything I did after that was cleaning up the remaining text.
Finally, since I have not edited this article directly, and any changes made based on my requests have been reviewed and accepted by a number of editors I have to ask: is the {{COI}} template on the article really necessary in addition to the POV one? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:16912_Rhiannon arrived on the scene on behalf of Quint Studer, he has controlled the content of the article with his Wikipedia lobbying. If he withdraws his influence on the article, then a valid POV discussion could begin.Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Wpwatchdog. This article is about Quint Studer, not the companies for which he has worked, so the micro-details about the performance of the companies is very concerning. As it currently stands, this article reads essentially as a resumé on steroids. It needs to be toned down. Czoal (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted above, I'm actually quite happy for you to edit the section down if you feel this is needed. When I first arrived here there was a LOT about Studer's company, especially detailed criticism of it that simply wasn't appropriate for this article. For the record, I haven't stood in the way of anyone editing this article: in fact, as you can see above, I've repeatedly sought out editors and invited them to look at this article and to make edits as appropriate to make the content better. On another note, I've mentioned previously that I am a woman, so it would be nice if you can stop calling me "he", Wpwatchdog. Thanks. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, User:16912_Rhiannon. I didn't remember that you are a woman. Yes, you certainly have lobbied for editors. I appreciate your disclosure of COI but it remains concerning that you are paid to by Studer to influence the outcome of the article.Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as 16912_Rhiannon is complying with the provisions of all applicable conflict guidelines and policies, such as WP:COI, WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE, and WP:PAID, then it should not be an issue. Czoal (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to Career and additions

[edit]

{{edit COI}}

It's been a little while and I appreciate that editors have other projects that they're working on, so since no further feedback has been offered or edits made in the article, I've returned to propose an updated draft attempting to respond to the concerns raised. Based on the discussion above, I made some changes to the Career section, as well as to the Baseball and Investments drafts I proposed above. Since no specific edits were offered, I did my best to revise language and edit out extra details that I thought might be troubling Czoal and Wpwatchdog. In particular, I focused on the details about the companies where Studer had worked and aimed to trim down anything not specifically pertaining to Studer or to reword to show how he was involved. I'd appreciate it if editors, especially those that had concerns with the previous versions, could review the updated material, which I've put together on my userspace here:

If there are other adjustments needed, let me know here, or, if you'd like, edit the draft directly. Also, I'd like to ask again about the {{COI}} template on the article: as I've rigorously followed COI guidelines and made no content edits to the article myself, this tag seems unnecessary, especially when the {{POV}} tag (which I had originally added) remains. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping here to say that I've invited editors from WikiProject Biography of Living Persons to take a look at this. Also, just to note: it seems that Czoal has been blocked for sockpuppeting, so will not be returning to this discussion. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball OK, since it is related to public interest and teams with wikipedia articles. Park OK as well, but 1-2 sentences only. All detail about bickering must go. Buildings and other investment are a no go. Micro-think tank is dubious. More independent coverage without promo hype and real impact of tank is needed. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and edits, Staszek Lem. Based on your feedback, I've trimmed down the draft in my userspace and renamed the Investments section to Pensacola Maritime Park. You can see the updated section here: User:16912_Rhiannon/Quint_Studer_Career,_Baseball_and_Investments
A couple of questions for you:
  1. If the Baseball and Pensacola Maritime Park drafts look good, would you mind adding them to the article? I don't edit live articles myself where I have a financial COI as I do in this case.
  2. Do you think that the existing Career section looks ok with your edits? Or would you want to use the trimmed Career version from my user space to update the article?
Thanks again for your feedback here and edits to the article! I'd also like to ping Guy1890, who I see has also made some helpful edits over the weekend. Do you have any feedback on the Career or other sections? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: "would you mind adding them to the article?" Yes I mind very much. If it is a guideline, it is extremely moronic. I am not paid to babysit paid editors. This is your authorship and I don't want it attributed to me in article history. Your draft suggestion is scrutinized and initially approved. You can used edit summary: As discussed in Talk:Quint Studer#Revisions to Career and additions. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position Staszek Lem, however I follow the "bright line" rule suggested by Jimbo Wales, as well as the COI guidelines which "strongly discourage" editing and don't edit directly where I have a conflict of interest. (As a side note, this is why I do not think the {{COI}} template on this article is appropriate: all edits I've suggested have been reviewed and implemented by volunteer editors, including any changes they felt necessary, and I have made no direct edits aside from adding the POV template early on when the page was nastily slanted against Mr. Studer.) For now, I'll wait and see if Guy1890 or anyone else is able to review and willing to make the additions. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's bullshit. You are not editing directly. You are editing after soliciting and incorporating opinions of independent editors. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16912 Rhiannon, you are showing your COI by stating that the page was nastily slanted against Studer. Studer is a controversial figure. National Nurses United alleged that he used his company to promote replacement of nurses with lesser-skilled healthcare workers. Cleveland Clinic Foundation filed suit against Studer and his partner, Barry Porter, for copyright infringement. When Studer was one of the principals in the Maritime Community Park project in 2005, he was accused of making a "sweetheart deal" by "getting a baseball stadium built all for himself." This was all cited material in the article before you got the page sanitized for him.Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wpwatchdog, I don't deny I have a conflict of interest here and I've been very clear about that. You've picked out three things that were removed from the page by other editors based on their own evaluations of the page, as is clear in the discussions on this Talk page, and the edit history. Early in my comments on the page, I noted that the Cleveland Clinic suit mentioned Studer directly and seemed appropriate to retain, however NorthBySouthBaranof felt differently. The NNU allegations were against Studer Group (as one example of various healthcare consulting programs), not Studer himself. Finally, my draft originally sought to re-add details about the controversy over the Maritime Park, however Stasek Lem's feedback was that this was "detail about bickering". Of course, this is all going over old ground and I know that I'm not going to persuade you of my good intentions, but I hope anyone else reading this page will take the time to look at the discussions and the edit history rather than taking your comments at face value. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 16912 Rhiannon, this is all old ground but anyone new to the discussion needs the information that it was only after your solicitation of other editors that the article was sanitized. This leads to the question of how far beyond you has Studer gone to influence what is in the article? And for further clarification, your spin is not accurate - Studer's tactics were featured in an article published by National Nurses United.Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Wpwatchdog, I can only account for my own presence here and my sincere hope that Mr Studer has followed my advice and not sought to edit without disclosure. If you have concerns about any of the editors who came to this page from BLPN or WikiProject Biography of living persons, I hope that you will address those editors personally and / or take your concerns to the Conflict of interest noticeboard. For the NNU criticism, here's the source that was used as a citation previously. Others can read this and make their own decision on how Studer Group is referenced, but I do note that Mr. Studer is not personally mentioned in this piece. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for including the link to the article, 16912 Rhiannon. Studer's company tactics (Studer Group), are featured in the article. As discussed previously, Studer Group does personally pertain to Quint Studer.Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final request for this page: image and infobox updates

[edit]

Hi again, I'll be stepping away from this page for a time and I hope other editors will be able to continue to improve the article and make use of the research and drafts shared above. I'll leave the request above open in the hopes that an interested editor will stop by.

As a final request, I'd like to ask about making a couple of small updates:

  1. Adding an image to the article's infobox. I've uploaded an image of Mr. Studer to Wikimedia Commons and it is just awaiting the confirmation of copyright release (Mr. Studer's counsel has confirmed this has been sent to OTRS). Once the image is updated with the license, would someone be able to add this? Here's the link File:Quint_Studer_2014.png
  2. A few minor updates to the infobox. This currently doesn't include his nationality, occupation etc. Seems like these would be great simple additions:
    1. Nationality: American
    2. Occupation: Entrepreneur, public speaker
    3. Employer: The Studer Group
    4. Known for: Founder of The Studer Group, owner of the Pensacola Blue Wahoos

Once again, as I have been working as a paid consultant on behalf of The Studer Group, I will not make these edits in the article and hope that someone is willing to add these updates.

Finally, one last plea that editors will either remove the {{COI}} template from the article, and / or seek to address the issues that they believe are present in its current content. As stated above, any changes made to this page have been subject to review by multiple uninvolved editors and I have not made any changes to the article's content myself. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Added all those details except for the employer bit because I think that it's a bit redundant with the "known for" part. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quint Studer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quint_Studer&oldid=1199200535"