Talk:Richard Zeckhauser
| 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright problem edit
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Article referenced in a blog edit
Please read this. Should it be cited? Should the article be protected from vandalism, due to the immigration controversy? Bearian (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, it should not be included in the article. First, it's one person's opinion about the merits of the PhD awarded to a student of Zeckhauser's. Second, the blog itself offers no evidence that the PhD was awarded in error or for any other improper reasons. Third, the issue that the blog author takes with the PhD is entirely based upon what the student did after graduating. Fourth, nearly everything in the blog post is speculative. Finally, even if everything alleged in the blog is true, at most it opens a question into how much attention Zeckhauser pays to his students and/or their dissertations -- again, there's no evidence to suggest there was anything to cause concern.
- Put another way, one blogger thinks one notable employee of the Heritage Foundation is a racist and wants to blame that man's PhD committee for his views. I don't think that counts as either notable or non-point-of-view.
- Mind you, I think there's considerable evidence that Richwine's scholarly practices are poor and he might, in fact, be prejudiced. But those are possible topics for an article about Jason Richwine, not for articles about his teachers. 75.37.16.186 (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion edit
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)