Talk:Glenn Poshard

Plagarism Controversy

this man has had over 40 years of public service, which includes being a US Represetive and Gubnitorial candidiate. I think the plagerism Controversy section, while it should be included, is disproportionatly large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.46.28 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The section on Plagarism Controversy has been deleted.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons for the academic standards that Wikipedia expects, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

The section contained poor references: footnote 1 only referred the article in footnote 2, attributing it without quotations as follows:

According to the Daily Egyptian, 14 sections of Poshard's dissertation has text taken verbatim from other sources without citing them. It also has 16 sections taken word for word from other texts, and they are cited but do not have quotation marks.

Footnote 2 contained no reference to either "14 sections" or "16 sections".

Footnote 1 did not contain the quotation marks found in the former Plagarism Controversy entry.

Footnote 1 does contain a quote regarding an anonymous group, "Alumni and Faculty Against Corruption at SIU", which is cited:

"These are allegations — and many others just like them — that have been made by this sad group of individuals bent on ruining the reputations of leaders and hundreds of faculty," Gross said. "Many of them are without merit. Others have some degree of merit and we're trying to address that as best we can.

Footnote 3 did not contain the quotation attributed to it by the sentence:

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, "no one on [Poshard's] dissertation committee told him that he had to use quotation marks.".

Thank you for your attention to Wikipedia standards. Create42000 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the section's been re-added and I'm strongly of the opinion that it should stay. Regardless of if the allegations are true or not, this is a pretty big scandal. Wikipedia's able to remark objectively on other incidents by presenting information about the controversy, so why can't we do that here? Wikipedia isn't here for speculation, sure, but this scandal exists. That's not speculation. 131.230.152.30 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is expressly not here to cast personal aspersions. Furthermore, the poorly sourced material was reintroduced without change. Since you are aware of some controversy, keep in mind that using Wikipedia to make personal charges severely undermines its credibility. Please find another outlet for your allegations. 170.206.224.54 21:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the section on the plaigarism charges so large. It is so broad I can barely find Poshards name! People this section must be focused on Poshard and what he did and is doing not go off on tangents that make it only seem like a recap of the entirety of the history of plaigarims in the world. OK so this needs cleanup very very very bad!!!. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance and I look forward to reading a better article on Mr. Poshard that is not so wildly and totally not about him in many respects. Thank you again. 167.206.75.157 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The plagarism section has been put back. Problems with certain sections of the controversy should be dealt with on individual basis. It does not warrant gross deletions. Such actions make it extremely difficult to accept edits in good faith. The section is on the long side, mostly because there is some confusion as to the parts that are relevant to Poshard, and those to the university as a whole. Part of this controversy section needs to be removed from Poshard's page and put on the University's. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you appear to have taken charge of this thing why don't you sort it out if you are just going to undo every effort to narrow this thing down so it is actually relevant to Poshard? Thank you so much. 167.206.75.157 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Poshard.jpg

Image:Poshard.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn Poshard. 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/20050314010514/http://www.siu.edu/bot/Poshard-bio.html to http://www.siu.edu/bot/Poshard-bio.html

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) 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)