Talk:Harrison White

Wikipedia style

As a note to recent editors, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia - thus, no "original research" is to be written into an article, and an article should only present facts that have been footnoted and can be found in independent third-party sources. This is especially true if one is asserting that the subject of an article is "influential" or "important" - our articles have to prove that we're not making this up and that there are proper third-party sources backing up what is being said. Basically, don't ask us to trust you - provide sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hypnotoad, Some of the edits aren't so recent: you've been at Futurama for too long;-) For another, your "peacocking" put-down tone is offensive, although I agree that some of the language -- although not the claims -- should be toned down. Please note that White has won the very rare Lifetime Achievement Award of the American Sociological Association. Lots more notable than Konklin (having never read Konklin, I can't comment more. Moreover, the definitive history of Social Network Analysis by Linton Freeman (2004) -- a widely accepted book -- supports almost all of the statements. Perhaps you should have asked rather than deleted. Be mellow. Live long and prosper. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If he's been recognized for achievements, that is worth putting in the article, but really only if independent sources are used to back it up and proper footnoting is done. This is a general pet peeve: new articles generally don't get footnoted, so that now there's no way for a non-expert reading the article to judge whether it's remotely true or just someone's personal opinion - or worse, an outright lie or fraud. There really are articles at Wikipedia on non-existent people.

Also, "peacocking" is not a put-down, it's a term used at Wikipedia to describe language that flatters the subject, usually without saying anything factual or providing any references. It applied in this case. There's a steep learning curve to it, but if editors check out the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and then familiarize themselves with our core policies (Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No Original Research), they'll find many ways to provide the information while maintaining a high quality.

So e.g., if it's factual and footnotable (verified with a footnote) that he did win the Lifetime Achievement Award of the American Sociological Association, that certainly can be reported in the article. However, if one were to want to call him "influential", the best that could be done is providing a reference to an independent third party using language like "In his survey of the history of the field, Fred Q noted White's admitted influence on Joe X and Fred V."

Though that also comes with a caveat: if we really do call him "influential", the problem remains that WP:NPOV suggests other views should also be presented (e.g. that someone else has said he's not "influential"). Moreover, it suggests that the overall tone should be emotionally neutral. Peacocking makes articles feel non-encyclopedic and encourages new editors to start injecting peacocking into every article they find about someone they like.

Anyway, that's my explanation, if you wanted it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

References

There are references in the edit version article, but I don't know how to make them show up in the display text. Perhaps you can help.Bellagio99 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. There was an unclosed ref tag. DarwinPeacock (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harrison White. 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/20151120100928/http://www.asanet.org/about/awards/duboiscareer.cfm to http://www.asanet.org/about/awards/duboiscareer.cfm

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)