Talk:Gabriel Rockhill

Notability issue

Hi, I put back the tag removed here; the "Notability issue" tag had been removed for the following reason : ‘’the subject passes criterias 6 and 7’’. I am most sorry but it can neither be said that an Assistant Pr. at Villanova (not to mention « directeur de programme » at CIPh (which is a mere honorary status as abroad consultant)) can be considered to equal positions at the highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society (crit. 6) nor can it be said (or if so, well, let the page prove it, which is now absolutely not the case) that Rockhill has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity (crit. 7). I therefore put the tag back, with your permission, hoping you will agree. 210.159.191.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding criterion 6: judging by what I read in Collège international de philosophie, I see that holding the chair of the director of program is not an honorary title: "directors of program are competitively elected for 6 years." If this is right it means that Rockhill has indeed held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution. If an academic meets that condition, as substantiated through reliable sources, s/he is notable. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the reply and research. Directeurs de programme (note that no translation is provided and that it is, in my idea, a faux-ami) are elected for six years, they create one teaching course or more, indeed, but the word « directeur de programme » (basically, someone who decides a seminar or research or cooperation program linked with an institution abroad or in Fr. and makes it work) does not imply what is usually meant by Director (Head of Department or any superior level) in the academic world. Hence my doubts.--210.159.191.89 (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that CIPh is a major education institute and that in the case of CIPh, the respective highest-level elected post is the Directeur de programme. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 even it was « respectively » so, I would consider that the organization in CIPh (non-institutionnal) makes this type of casuistic jurisprudential arguing a bit specious. But, let’s pretend you can reason like this; still, President being the highest-elected post, ergo Directeur de programme (please note that there are 50 of them) is not. I suggest we wait for opinions by other editors if you still disagree.--210.159.191.89 (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit you are right that the highest-elected post in the case of CIPh is the President; I had not noticed the distinction between directors and presidents before. Sidenote: I hope that you do not contest that CIPh is an academic institution though; the fact that CIPh works like an open university and that it has "directors of programs" instead of professors does nοt mean that it is not a higher education institute. I will try to find a reliable source regarding criterion 7. (Please do not argue using terms like casuistry; just keep your point clear.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I never contested here that CIPh is an academic institution (but CIPH does contest it, though.). As for the word you mention, you noticed that I did not use the word casuistry but casuistic (Lat. or Fr. or classical meaning). Which was both a gallicism and a grammar error. I honestly did not mean anything (if so, I would not have used ALSO the adjective specious) but what the word refers to in the first place : a study of matter of fact cases according to general principles only. It may be slightly ironic but it was not meant to be read as « bad-reasoning » (which is the first definition on the en:WP, indeed). Sorry for this faux-pas and sorry that you read and then heard it else way. (Which reminds me to ask you, concerning your second edit here, not to change the layout in other editors’ contributions without asking them first, by the way). Hope the concern is addressed and I leave it to you and the other editors’ good will. Greetings,--210.159.191.89 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes (for other editors to know what we are talking about)

It is now 2017--five years later. I have removed the "notability" tag. Feel free to nominate it for AFD if you want.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriel Rockhill. 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/20140427012905/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15200-6/radical-history-and-the-politics-of-art/reviews to http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15200-6/radical-history-and-the-politics-of-art/reviews

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) 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)