This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Joel Hayward article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
As I recreate this bio, I'm going to list what I'm putting in step-by-step and my rationale for including it. I'll check my talk page periodically if you'd like to chime in. I'm not going to flesh out the article very much, I'm just going to put in the basics.
Groupthink 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've invested all the time and energy I'm willing to put into this, for now. I've pre-emptively added the {{{Unbalanced}}} tag because I'm sure that people are going to complain that it's still unbalanced. I've tagged places where expansion could bring about a better balance, but it is my good-faith belief that everything I've put in is reliably sourced and relevant. There are warts here, but in my opinion they're fair warts. Now I beg of y'all, please, don't let my work be in vain. Don't delete, correct and expand! Groupthink 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC) One other note: as I've indicate, there are still some additional cites needed. Also, reference #5 is an indirect citation and should be replaced with a direct citation (I couldn't find one, but I'm sure others more industrious than me can). Groupthink 18:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to Groupthink my objection to his original text on my life was that it mentioned an accusation that lay at the heart of a controversy in 2000 but did not adequately point out the result of the accusation: that a working party of the University of Canterbury concluded in December 2000 that the MA thesis contained mistaken and unsustainable conclusions based on my poor supervision and my inadequate preparation and training for such a project, but that no malice, racism or dishonesty led me to my mistakes. Another writer on the talk page alleges that I write controversial books. That is inaccurate. I am author or editor of several well-received and mainstream studies, including one on Lord Nelson, whom I extol. Joel Hayward.
Yes, the link is: http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/hayward/report.PDF It is important to point out that the controversy was in New Zealand, in 2000, has not continued, and that I apologised often, explicitly and unreservedly for those old thesis mistakes. It is entirely unfair otherwise. Joel Hayward
Fairness is all I have wanted and asked of you. In 1991/92 I made deeply reretted mistakes as a fledgling and inexperienced research student. But they were honest mistakes. That's my point. Dr Joel Hayward.
We certainly have an obligation to write a fair article by these rules. There's no reason why we can't say "Yes this caused controversy, but it has been said this was due to error, not malice <reference to the working party report, maybe also mention Mr Hayward's apologies and later claims of mistakes (not malice)>. Apart from that, doesn't look like a bad start, and more feedback from Mr Hayward would be excellent. Moreschi Talk 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Bravo to Groupthink for writing carefully and very much in the spirit of NPOV. I think we need to be more clear when we invite personal feedback from the subject though, on COI grounds. If the subject can point us to reliable sources containing more information that is appropriate for the article, that's fine. And if he wishes to remove assertions that are unsourced and incorrect, he is welcome to do so. However, we cannot add assertions to the article based solely on his statements, as that would constitute original research, nor should sourced facts be removed by anybody, including the subject, simply because they do not agree with them. -- Butseriouslyfolks 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've only just discovered this article (through the AfD for Stopped At Stalingrad - which I opposed) and so am coming to this with little knowledge of past debates. I've made a few edits in the interest of trying to address the balance and bring things more in line with the manual of style. I'm hoping that the balance tag might soon be removed. Victoriagirl 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Groupthink, I think what you have written and others have tweaked is, as it reads at this point in time, fair. Thank you for that. Joel Hayward.
I commend everyone who's stepped in and improved this article, particularly Ace of Swords and Victoriagirl. At this point, I would say that the article is balanced enough to remove the {{{Unbalanced}}} tag, and the post-graduate section has been expanded enough to remove the {{{Expand}}} tag. However, to avoid any semblance of conflict-of-interest, I'm not going to remove the tags myself (but I have put in hidden comments indicating that any editor can feel free to do so).
Assuming the AfD will result in this article being kept (and it sure looks like that's what's going to happen), I will not be actively editing this article, but I am going to keep it in my watchlist for a while to make sure that the warts of this bio are appropriately preserved. I'm worried that the balance of this article's tone is going to tilt too far towards the favorable, so I'd like to urge everyone to remember that this article should not and must not be a fanvertisement for Dr. Hayward. Like I said above, we shouldn't edit to bury, but we shouldn't edit to praise either. Groupthink 11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We should not overlook the fact that he is the current dean of a major institution ( with verification), that to readers is important and informative. I'm sure his thesis controversy in his youth , 29 to be exact should not be a measure of a persons life's work. The writer has taken the time to inform readers, if you dislike his organization of his entry, I'm sure a revision of suggested changes would be taken as constructive criticism. It is the negative feedback that writers see that demotivate the creative process. My opinion is, great job so far! Keep improving until satisfied. That is what we like best about electronic publishing, the writer can always revise after time to reflect on his work.
Thanks Research 2020 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.201.139 ( talk •
contribs) 22:55, 21 June 2007. — 68.219.201.139 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
With all due respect, am I the only person reading this article to think it's turgid gibberish? I mean, really, it does read like a total vanity page. Almost all the references cited are Joel Hayward himself. There is clearly a high degree of original research going on in the writing of this article. Hayward does not εappear to have been the subject of any biography. I'm not disputing notability here: Hayward is obviously notable as an author of some notable work, and is probably notable as an academic, and is obviously notable for the controversy of his thesis. We don't need to know about his early life. We don't need to know about his BA degree, or what papers he studied for it. We don't need to know quite so much information about his early working life at Massey university, either. We don't need a list of journal articles, and conference papers. For somebody who is perhaps notable for three things, there's far too much padding in here. ( Randomkiwi 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
From the opening sentence of historical revisionism: "Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative meaning. The pejorative use refers to illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes, for example Holocaust denial." Given Hayward's past connections to David Irving, the term is apt. Your edits are not appropriate, Jayjg, and I request that you stop making them. Groupthink 02:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)ε
Holocaust denial vs. Revisionism:
I hope that makes my position clear; I'm going with what the scholars say on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth noting that in 2011 Dr Hayward converted to Islam? 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 09:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The first time I read this article I was looking for information on Hayward's thesis controversy, and was surprised to find it at the end of the second section rather than in chronological order in the "Education at UC" section. This seems to be both counter-intuitive (chronological order of events being intuitive) and counter to the standard writing of biographies of either living people or dead, when similar information is grouped together (i.e. all information about the person's education at UC should be grouped together). TBH, I was looking for this information and almost gave up after reading the "Education at UC" section, assuming it wasn't included at all. I had to read through almost the whole article to find it, which doesn't make it easy for readers to access. Thus, I moved the sub-section on the thesis up to the appropriate chronological point at the end of the "Education at UC" section. However, @ GorgeCustersSabre: disagreed with me and undid my revision. I stand by my view that chronologically and logically that sub-section should sit in the "Education at UC" section. Any other thoughts from other editors?? MurielMary ( talk) 05:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Joel Hayward. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.londondeclaration.com/shtmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Much of Hayward's academic biography is based inappropriately on his autobiography and organisational biographies he's likely to have had a hand in writing. The article also contains claims which were questioned by the canterbury report (such as 'maternal grandmother's Jewishness'). I trimmed much of this and rewrote it in the style of most other wikipedia biographies of academics. I left the Islamic stuff, since to be honest I don't have the background to evaluate that side of the biography. These changes should be bought back, but I'm not going to edit war over it. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I appear to have bollocksed the AfD process for this article. I got thrown by the fact that there were already three other AfD reqs, two of which were titled "2nd nom" and "second nom". Rather than continue to try to manually fix this, I've reached out for help at Wikipedia:Help desk. Apologies. Groupthink ( talk) 05:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Joel Hayward article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
As I recreate this bio, I'm going to list what I'm putting in step-by-step and my rationale for including it. I'll check my talk page periodically if you'd like to chime in. I'm not going to flesh out the article very much, I'm just going to put in the basics.
Groupthink 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've invested all the time and energy I'm willing to put into this, for now. I've pre-emptively added the {{{Unbalanced}}} tag because I'm sure that people are going to complain that it's still unbalanced. I've tagged places where expansion could bring about a better balance, but it is my good-faith belief that everything I've put in is reliably sourced and relevant. There are warts here, but in my opinion they're fair warts. Now I beg of y'all, please, don't let my work be in vain. Don't delete, correct and expand! Groupthink 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC) One other note: as I've indicate, there are still some additional cites needed. Also, reference #5 is an indirect citation and should be replaced with a direct citation (I couldn't find one, but I'm sure others more industrious than me can). Groupthink 18:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to Groupthink my objection to his original text on my life was that it mentioned an accusation that lay at the heart of a controversy in 2000 but did not adequately point out the result of the accusation: that a working party of the University of Canterbury concluded in December 2000 that the MA thesis contained mistaken and unsustainable conclusions based on my poor supervision and my inadequate preparation and training for such a project, but that no malice, racism or dishonesty led me to my mistakes. Another writer on the talk page alleges that I write controversial books. That is inaccurate. I am author or editor of several well-received and mainstream studies, including one on Lord Nelson, whom I extol. Joel Hayward.
Yes, the link is: http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/hayward/report.PDF It is important to point out that the controversy was in New Zealand, in 2000, has not continued, and that I apologised often, explicitly and unreservedly for those old thesis mistakes. It is entirely unfair otherwise. Joel Hayward
Fairness is all I have wanted and asked of you. In 1991/92 I made deeply reretted mistakes as a fledgling and inexperienced research student. But they were honest mistakes. That's my point. Dr Joel Hayward.
We certainly have an obligation to write a fair article by these rules. There's no reason why we can't say "Yes this caused controversy, but it has been said this was due to error, not malice <reference to the working party report, maybe also mention Mr Hayward's apologies and later claims of mistakes (not malice)>. Apart from that, doesn't look like a bad start, and more feedback from Mr Hayward would be excellent. Moreschi Talk 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Bravo to Groupthink for writing carefully and very much in the spirit of NPOV. I think we need to be more clear when we invite personal feedback from the subject though, on COI grounds. If the subject can point us to reliable sources containing more information that is appropriate for the article, that's fine. And if he wishes to remove assertions that are unsourced and incorrect, he is welcome to do so. However, we cannot add assertions to the article based solely on his statements, as that would constitute original research, nor should sourced facts be removed by anybody, including the subject, simply because they do not agree with them. -- Butseriouslyfolks 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've only just discovered this article (through the AfD for Stopped At Stalingrad - which I opposed) and so am coming to this with little knowledge of past debates. I've made a few edits in the interest of trying to address the balance and bring things more in line with the manual of style. I'm hoping that the balance tag might soon be removed. Victoriagirl 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Groupthink, I think what you have written and others have tweaked is, as it reads at this point in time, fair. Thank you for that. Joel Hayward.
I commend everyone who's stepped in and improved this article, particularly Ace of Swords and Victoriagirl. At this point, I would say that the article is balanced enough to remove the {{{Unbalanced}}} tag, and the post-graduate section has been expanded enough to remove the {{{Expand}}} tag. However, to avoid any semblance of conflict-of-interest, I'm not going to remove the tags myself (but I have put in hidden comments indicating that any editor can feel free to do so).
Assuming the AfD will result in this article being kept (and it sure looks like that's what's going to happen), I will not be actively editing this article, but I am going to keep it in my watchlist for a while to make sure that the warts of this bio are appropriately preserved. I'm worried that the balance of this article's tone is going to tilt too far towards the favorable, so I'd like to urge everyone to remember that this article should not and must not be a fanvertisement for Dr. Hayward. Like I said above, we shouldn't edit to bury, but we shouldn't edit to praise either. Groupthink 11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We should not overlook the fact that he is the current dean of a major institution ( with verification), that to readers is important and informative. I'm sure his thesis controversy in his youth , 29 to be exact should not be a measure of a persons life's work. The writer has taken the time to inform readers, if you dislike his organization of his entry, I'm sure a revision of suggested changes would be taken as constructive criticism. It is the negative feedback that writers see that demotivate the creative process. My opinion is, great job so far! Keep improving until satisfied. That is what we like best about electronic publishing, the writer can always revise after time to reflect on his work.
Thanks Research 2020 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.201.139 ( talk •
contribs) 22:55, 21 June 2007. — 68.219.201.139 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
With all due respect, am I the only person reading this article to think it's turgid gibberish? I mean, really, it does read like a total vanity page. Almost all the references cited are Joel Hayward himself. There is clearly a high degree of original research going on in the writing of this article. Hayward does not εappear to have been the subject of any biography. I'm not disputing notability here: Hayward is obviously notable as an author of some notable work, and is probably notable as an academic, and is obviously notable for the controversy of his thesis. We don't need to know about his early life. We don't need to know about his BA degree, or what papers he studied for it. We don't need to know quite so much information about his early working life at Massey university, either. We don't need a list of journal articles, and conference papers. For somebody who is perhaps notable for three things, there's far too much padding in here. ( Randomkiwi 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
From the opening sentence of historical revisionism: "Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative meaning. The pejorative use refers to illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes, for example Holocaust denial." Given Hayward's past connections to David Irving, the term is apt. Your edits are not appropriate, Jayjg, and I request that you stop making them. Groupthink 02:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)ε
Holocaust denial vs. Revisionism:
I hope that makes my position clear; I'm going with what the scholars say on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth noting that in 2011 Dr Hayward converted to Islam? 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 09:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The first time I read this article I was looking for information on Hayward's thesis controversy, and was surprised to find it at the end of the second section rather than in chronological order in the "Education at UC" section. This seems to be both counter-intuitive (chronological order of events being intuitive) and counter to the standard writing of biographies of either living people or dead, when similar information is grouped together (i.e. all information about the person's education at UC should be grouped together). TBH, I was looking for this information and almost gave up after reading the "Education at UC" section, assuming it wasn't included at all. I had to read through almost the whole article to find it, which doesn't make it easy for readers to access. Thus, I moved the sub-section on the thesis up to the appropriate chronological point at the end of the "Education at UC" section. However, @ GorgeCustersSabre: disagreed with me and undid my revision. I stand by my view that chronologically and logically that sub-section should sit in the "Education at UC" section. Any other thoughts from other editors?? MurielMary ( talk) 05:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Joel Hayward. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.londondeclaration.com/shtmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Much of Hayward's academic biography is based inappropriately on his autobiography and organisational biographies he's likely to have had a hand in writing. The article also contains claims which were questioned by the canterbury report (such as 'maternal grandmother's Jewishness'). I trimmed much of this and rewrote it in the style of most other wikipedia biographies of academics. I left the Islamic stuff, since to be honest I don't have the background to evaluate that side of the biography. These changes should be bought back, but I'm not going to edit war over it. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I appear to have bollocksed the AfD process for this article. I got thrown by the fact that there were already three other AfD reqs, two of which were titled "2nd nom" and "second nom". Rather than continue to try to manually fix this, I've reached out for help at Wikipedia:Help desk. Apologies. Groupthink ( talk) 05:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)