Wikipedia

Talk:Allen Meadors/Archive 1

< Talk:Allen Meadors
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Cordless Larry in topic request to remove excessive negative details
Archive 1

Section break

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have an entirely new draft on Allen Meadors with citations and links being review in my Scribe Syndicate page sandbox as of 11/26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScribeSyndicate/sandbox. I need to know how to get the approved content on this page after review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScribeSyndicate (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Section break

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

new user name Juno771 per discussion on freelance writing entities, adding {{paid|userbox=yes}} user paid by client, Allen Meadors. Adding new signature after approval of user name change. References appear to have been corrected by wiki members. Assuming {{Namespace:Pagename}} transclusion needs to be used for Google drive document lists of publications, honor and awards, reviews. Confirm? A consent form will be provided shortly for photo release. Please advise of the specific template that should have been used for a notable figure. I only want to comply and remove warning boxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScribeSyndicate (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Section break

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

uncertain why changes I am trying to make are not working. I have tried to fix dead links and add sources that are required; these are the additional sources, the first is the inline citation that was needed.

  1. "A Friend of a Friend John Masters and Allen Meadors", Coach4aDay, 2015. Retrieved November 28, 2016.
  2. “Mathematics Educator: UNCP readies search for Allen C. Meadors Distinguished Professor”, 2009. Retrieved November 28, 2016.
  3. “Chancellor Meadors Appointed A State Retirement Trustee”, 2001. Retrieved November 28, 2016.
  4. [ http://www.uncp.edu/news/chancellor-meadors-dr-len-holmes-appointed-region-advisory-committee-biotechnology “Chancellor Meadors, Dr. Len Holmes Appointed to Region Advisory Committee on Biotechnology”, 2006. Retrieved November 28, 2016. </ref>
  5. [ Bigelow, K., 2004. http://www.uncp.edu/news/chancellor-meadors-signs-agreements-korean-university “Chancellor Meadors signs agreements with Korean university”. Retrieved November 28, 2016.
  6. [ http://www.uncp.edu/news/bbt-endows-distinguished-professorship-uncp BB&T endows distinguished professorship at UNCP, 2007. Retrieved November 28, 2016.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScribeSyndicate (talk • contribs) 13:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The changes you are attempting to make (at least the ones I've reverted) are not suitable changes. You should not be adding external links to the body of the text. Also, when posting on talk pages, please use the "New Section" tab (unless you are responding to a specific section) and sign your posts with ~~~~. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
As for the references - #1 is a blog and thus not acceptable, and the rest are from UNC Pembrook, where he worked; this does not make the sources invalid; they are PRIMARY sources and should be used sparingly. They should also not be all listed (really you should have a maximum of three refs per statement). Primefac (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see the edit summaries in the article history to see why you are being reverted, ScribeSyndicate. The red links in the text of the article are not "dead links" per se. They are wikilinks to articles on Wikipedia that do not yet exist, but which might do one day. You are replacing them with external links, which is not appropriate. You also seem to be attempting to remove material not favourable to Meadors from the article. Please don't do that without good reason, or explaining why. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, there's currently no need for additional sources, as all of the material in the article is cited. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allen Meadors. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, much has been discussed regarding this page since I was away for a week 11/29-12/7. I am requesting admin help in order to move forward. I am wondering if the article is classified properly as {{edu-bio-stub}} and wondering how I can improve the stub rating. It appears the citations and links are approved as accurate and the controversy section also considered to be accurate at this point. I would like to offset the controversy section with factual academic works, but they are provided on a list put together on his extensive CV. I wanted to add this bibliography (published academic works by Allen Meadors also Honors and Awards received in his field), but it is too long according to rules regarding lists. I then wondered if I could submit it to the commons area and link it there in part or in it's entirety. Please advise if this meets the rules. The only other place Meadors resume resides online is http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/182749/bio​ and I was told it is to similar to a vanity site. Also, approval for copyright on photo and resume (please advise if there is a different process to submit this information):

Consent Form: Wikipedia (1)

I hereby affirm that [Dr. Allen C. Meadors] OR [UCA university photographer] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [1], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). (THIS IS THE STANDARD CHOICE; YOU MAY CHOOSE ANOTHER ACCEPTABLE FREE LICENSE, IF YOU WISH TO) I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Allen Meadors] [Jessica L Headrick, Scribe Syndicate, paid editor] [12/8/2016]

Consent Form: Wikipedia (2)

I hereby affirm that [Allen C. Meadors] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [2] or at [3], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). (THIS IS THE STANDARD CHOICE; YOU MAY CHOOSE ANOTHER ACCEPTABLE FREE LICENSE, IF YOU WISH TO) I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Allen C. Meadors] [Jessica L Headrick, Scribe Syndicate, paid editor] [12.8.2016] Juno771 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Juno771, CVs are not acceptable for use as sources. You will have to find independent sources that verify the information you want to add. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, the copyright release letter needs to be e-mailed from the e-mail address of the copyright holder, rather than pasted here, because otherwise we have no way of verifying who you are. See Commons:Email templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
My comment applies to images. I don't think Wikimedia Commons would host a CV. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Technically speaking, release of copyright can be text or images. I think the email template works for text as well, but if not see WP:DONATETEXT. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The information provided under Donate Text is very confusing. I need to verify that I simply need to insert the code before adding links to external information, and within the "donate text" category, is it considered a subcategory for "articles with imported freely licensed text" or a "copyleft" situation? Does the link provided for the previously described vanity site for Frontiers then comply? Allen Meadors has read the documents and acknoweledges the copyright issues. He is the owner of his published works that support his academic career and currently determining whether to move forward.Juno771 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think there's been a fundamental understanding here, Juno771. The copyright of the text of Meadors's publications likely belongs to the publishers rather than him, but even if he does own the copyright, I don't see what is to be gained by donating it to Wikipedia. We won't include the text of his publications in the article, as the article is supposed to be about him, not by him in the way that his publications are. We can cover what his publications are about and the impact they have had, but he doesn't need to donate the text of them for us to do that. Does that make sense, or have I got the wrong end of the stick regarding what you plan to donate? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
merely allowing access to proof of his expertise and advances in certain fields he participated in for other academics who may want to learn about it or follow the progress.Juno771 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, but for us to cover that expertise, etc., it would really have to be covered in third-party sources, as explained in the section above. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The new "Controversy" section

Latest comment: 7 years ago41 comments9 people in discussion

This is the current text of the Controversy section:

In February 2009, Meadors was appointed president of the University of Central Arkansas. In September 2011, it was reported that the university board had bought out Meadors's contract, accepted his resignation in return, and replaced him with an interim president.[9] The board's actions followed a controversy about renovations and expansion of the university president's house. The university campus food service contractor Aramark had offered to contribute $700,000 to the cost of the renovation.[10] Meadors reportedly did not inform the board that the deal involved granting Aramark a new service contract. This deal was uncovered by an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette investigation, which was one of a number by journalist Debra Hale-Shelton into expenditure at the institution. It is reported that Meadors "had become obsessed with the newspaper's dogged attention to details at UCA, an attention he didn't think extended to other university campuses". According to the Arkansas Times, the "UCA Board decided...to investigate how the misinformation on the Aramark money came about, with a promise of taking sworn testimony."[9] In January 2013, Meadors pleaded guilty to violating the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act during his time as the UCA president, after he was "accused of urging a vice president to destroy a letter that said the offer would be in exchange for renewing Aramark's contract".[11][12] Meadors had originally been charged with tampering with a public document, but reached a negotiated plea bargain for a violation of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.[13]

I see two things that could easily be removed: the "This deal was uncovered" sentence regarding who reported (this is unnecessary information), and the deliberations about the UCA board itself (again, possibly unnecessary). I have highlighted the text to remove above. This would leave us with:

In February 2009, Meadors was appointed president of the University of Central Arkansas. In September 2011, it was reported that the university board had bought out Meadors's contract, accepted his resignation in return, and replaced him with an interim president.[9] The board's actions followed a controversy about renovations and expansion of the university president's house. The university campus food service contractor Aramark had offered to contribute $700,000 to the cost of the renovation.[10] Meadors reportedly did not inform the board that the deal involved granting Aramark a new service contract.In January 2013, Meadors pleaded guilty to violating the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act during his time as the UCA president, after he was "accused of urging a vice president to destroy a letter that said the offer would be in exchange for renewing Aramark's contract".[11][12] Meadors had originally been charged with tampering with a public document, but reached a negotiated plea bargain for a violation of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.[13]

This results in a paragraph that tells only the facts: he was appointed, he was bought out/resigned, and this was because he voilated the AR FOI by trying to destroy the letter. It means we don't have to deal with the motivations, the other players involved, or how Meadors thinks he could have done things differently. Would this be acceptable? Primefac (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Pointer22 and Cordless Larry for their input. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
this was because he voilated the AR FOI by trying to destroy the letter--Ok guys, nowhere does Meadors acknowledging trying to destroy anything. This charge was dropped and a FOI violation was charged. A FOI refers to an institution not providing the media requested public information with 24 hours of the request (in Arkansas, longer in most other states). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This source says Former UCA President Allen Meadors entered a negotiated plea bargain for a violation of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. This is also what you just argued, and what my proposed text currently says. I'm done. I have no patience for you asking for what is already there, then complaining when it's "not done right". Primefac (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Two simple things and the above would work. Can we agree?
Meadors and the Chairman of the Board of Director reportedly did not inform the board that the deal involved granting Aramark......
And don't repeat--use one of the below but not both. They are the same reference.
"accused of urging a vice president to destroy a letter that said the offer
Meadors had originally been charged with tampering with a public document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
What's the source of the request? You don't get to pay to have an article on Wikipedia and then throw your toys out of the pram because it ends up "warts and all". Guy (Help!) 23:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
What so you mean :What is the source of the request" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I support your proposed wording, Primefac. Thanks for the ping. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Pointer22, the entire purpose of this discussion is to determine what to put on the page. Ignoring the discussion and simply doing whatever you want to do a) defeats the whole purpose, and b) makes your edits more likely to be reverted. Please try to come to some sort of agreement with us. I have been trying to make the Controversy section as factually accurate and neutral as I can, but the more you refuse to come to the table to discuss the issue the less inclined I am to be willing to listen. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

WE THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THIS WITH THIS FEEDBACK EARLIER?? We don't like it but it's closer to being truthful and adequate.

Two simple things and the above would work. Can we agree?

Meadors and the Chairman of the Board of Director reportedly did not inform the board that the deal involved granting Aramark......

And don't repeat--use one of the below but not both. They are the same reference.

"accused of urging a vice president to destroy a letter that said the offer

Meadors had originally been charged with tampering with a public document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; a person can be accused of one thing, charged with another, and then plea down to something else. Why is it so important that only one of those statements are included? Primefac (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
As a note, I've requested a third opinion for this discussion. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That request might be declined on the basis that the dispute isn't between two editors, Primefac. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, throughout life most people are accused of lots of things (being tardy, spilling this or that,etc) but in this case Meadors was only accused of "solicitation of tampering with a public record"---which was in this case the VP for Finance saying that he asked her to throw away her copy of the food service letter which the legal translated into "solicitation of tampering with a public record". The final charge was modified to a violation of the State FOI act. No guilt of the original charge was proven or accepted. He was charged with the FOI. Based on which articles you read or what your value system is, you can say, he may have been guilt or not. What is/should be focus on is what was the final charge. We wish former President Meadors would flown back and had the first charge thrown out but we can understand his financial considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The Controversy section is inadequate, we have put factual statements with newspaper articles to suppoet statements but they are repeatedly removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Why are our additions being removed???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Two reasons. First, you have a COI. Second, as a result of that COI (and the fact that I and other editors have disagreed with your edits) the discussion has moved to the Talk page. You are the only one still actively engaged in editing the article with content that we have not yet agreed on. Additionally, in looking through some of the edits, many of your changes have broken the page (either by removing the {{reflist}} tag or removing the references entirely). Primefac (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
On Primefac's final point, see this, which is the state you left the article in, Pointer22. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
What is wrong with this version of the narrative under the Controversy section? It only slightly modifies the version that is shown now and at least slightly explains whay there is a controversy.
There are news articles that support the modification. Thank you for your consideration.
In February 2009, Meadors was appointed president of the University of Central Arkansas. In September 2011, it was reported that the university board had bought out Meadors's contract, accepted his resignation in return, and replaced him with an interim president.[9] The board's actions followed a controversy about renovations and expansion of the university president's house. The university campus food service contractor Aramark had offered to contribute $700,000 to the cost of the renovation.[10] The Chairman of the Board of Trustee and Meadors reportedly did not inform the board that the deal involved granting Aramark a new service contract[14]. This deal was uncovered by an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette investigation, which was one of a number by journalist Debra Hale-Shelton into expenditure at the institution. It is reported that Meadors "had become obsessed with the newspaper's dogged attention to details at UCA, an attention he didn't think extended to other university campuses". According to the Arkansas Times, the "UCA Board decided...to investigate how the misinformation on the Aramark money came about, with a promise of taking sworn testimony."[9] In January 2013, Meadors pleaded guilty to violating the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act during his time as the UCA president, after he was "accused of urging a vice president to destroy a letter that said the offer would be in exchange for renewing Aramark's contract".[11][12] Meadors had originally been charged with tampering with a public document, but reached a negotiated plea bargain for a violation of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.[13] The Chairman of the Board of Trustees had appointed a committee to review funding option for the President's House.[15]
The news reference are still on the current Allen Meadors Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:5683:2500:C57C:53C4:505:3DE3 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you Pointer22, IP editor? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
No but we share a desire to be Dr. Meadors to have a fair Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACM7 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

ACM7, please answer me honestly: I have provided what I feel is a better, more neutral paragraph (way at the top of this discussion). What specifically are you opposed to in that version? I don't want quotes, I don't want a rant, I would just like to know why you feel that the paragraph above does not work so that we can try to come to some sort of consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

These COI editors have been blocked for sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ACM7. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed. I am going to implement the changes I proposed above, though I'm still open to discussing further changes. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Primefac. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Primefac, the two key elements to make this acceptable are:
1."The Chairman of the Board of Trustee and Meadors"
there are numerous quotes in numerous articles (one was provided) that verifies this.
2."The Chairman of the Board of Trustees had appointed a committee to review funding option for the President's House.
This is important and again verifiable. Other editorial article reference make look like this was the former president's initiate.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straighttalk (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello duck. You didn't answer my question. However, I have a feeling you'll be getting blocked soon, so I won't even ask you to elaborate on why you feel that this change is so bloody important that you have to get six different accounts and repeatedly blocked for edit warring to get put on the page. You won't answer me anyway... Primefac (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I did answer you, what was the above? We have tried to be civil and respectful of the process. What did we not answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straighttalk (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Respectful of the process? Then why are you abusing multiple accounts?
Not that it really matters now, but Primefac wrote "What specifically are you opposed to in that version? I don't want quotes", and all you did was provide quotes. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If those two statements were included, we would accept the section but as written it is very misleading, no, addition those two statements will not make what it should be but to cooperate and move on, we would go with the minor but key modifications. To answer the question put us, we had to have someone else open an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straighttalk (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least we're finally getting somewhere. What about the new paragraph as proposed is misleading? Primefac (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Any new accounts that you set up will simply be blocked, Straighttalk. If you wish to be allowed to continue to contribute, then you need to request an unblock, following the instructions left at User talk:ACM7#Blocked for sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  3O Response: Several editors have added to the discussion since the request was made, and one of the original editors has been blocked for sockpuppetry and edit warring. Bradv 01:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikipedia page again this morning, I am wondering if this is a lost cause. Someone seems determined to keep slanted material at the forefront, if they have truly researched the information they would know that there is tons of contradiction in the articles written (even by the original reporter). This was a situation driven by politics not facts (and Meadors was blessed to be caught in the middle of it). The page is now worse off than when I started, so I don't know if it is prudent to continue. Those that control the site seem to want to continue the bias approach. How do I request removal and withdraw the rights to any information shared to this point? Someone with over 50 years of educational expertise in improving health administration and so many other things has been reduced to one incident of biased personal attack. I thought Wiki was neutral and interested in offering valuable information to the public.I was paid to write an article. I have never met Allen Meadors in person, but have spoken with him through email and read through his accomplishments at length. Academic works are largely published material. You refuse to let us use the bibliography list to back up the accomplishments and it is 3 pages long. I cannot cite that amount of resources. His honors and awards were removed. I question the motives and integrity of the site at this point. It is urgent that I receive a reply.Juno771 (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Juno771, I hope that you understand that coverage of awards needs to be supported by an independent source, otherwise anyone could make up awards, add them to their CV and then use that as a source to get them included on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to add the awards to the article if you can provide independent sources (such as statements from the award-giving body). As for "How do I request removal and withdraw the rights to any information shared to this point?", I'm not aware that Meadors owns the rights to any of the material in the article. It is all based on publicly available sources, which are appropriately cited. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not give editorial control to subjects even if they paid for the article. Anything that is verifiable from reliable sources, may be included. And anything which amounts to promotion and advertorial, won't be. JzG (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, in what sense is the "slanted material" - as you put it - "at the forefront"? There's only one paragraph on the circumstances of his leaving UCA, towards the end of the article, and a single sentence summary in the lede. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I added "The Chair of the Board of Director and" to the sentence regarding who forgot to inform the board of the Aramark funds. It is accurate according to the source listed and wondered why it does not appear on the article yet. Juno771 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
That's because I reverted your edit, because none of the sources cited in that section of the article seem to mention involvement of the chair. If I am mistaken, please specify which source does support the claim (this will need to be cited at the end of the sentence concerned). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hale-Shelton, Debra. "Meadors charged in UCA food vendor case". www.arkansasonline.com. Retrieved 4 December 2016. "Meadors and Scott Roussel, who was then chairman of UCA’s board of trustees, had described to other trustees the Aramark offer as a donation. Neither mentioned that the offer was contingent upon renewal of the vendor’s seven-year contract with UCA — a condition first reported by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on Aug. 31, 2011." and "Roussel — who billed the Aramark offer as “a very generous donation” and a “godsend” when he announced it at an Aug. 26, 2011, board meeting — will not be charged, Hiland said."Juno771 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you've already provided this information in the section above and I've replied there, Juno771. Let's keep the discussion in one place. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Grants section

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The grants section of the article comprises two paragraphs. The first starts "Meadors and other faculty and departments were instrumental in gathering grants and other funding for UNCP to construct a bio-processing laboratory". However, I'm not sure that the source cited for this establishes that his role was "instrumental". The second paragraph claims that "Meadors obtained a federal Department of Education grant to train American Indian public school teachers at UNC Pembroke", but the source names Dr Zoe Locklear as the project director, and the only mention of Meadors is to quote him saying that the institution is committed to training American Indian teachers. I propose removing these paragraphs unless sources that support the statements about Meadors's role in the projects can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
As I am clearly considered biased by adding any text to this page by being paid by my client (even though I have been clear and the page has been labeled as a paid contribution per instruction) I will no longer be attempting to edit. The project is complete. There are several articles regarding grants for UNC Pembroke under Allen Meadors direction as he was President of the University at the time and fundraising is part of the job. The details are not available online as only the current president has details and he is not current. Much of my original text was supported by references already listed or removed by disgruntled volunteers. This requires re-reading everything repeatedly and unnecessarily. The FranWiki site reiterates much of what I have written and is apparently already approved with references. No reply is necessary Juno771 (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
You put your finger on it: it is part of his job, and not really encyclopedic information at all. Applying for grants is the reality for any academic; those who get them might get a "well done" on their university's official website but it would not be added to an encyclopedia. It would only become relevant if it were discussed in secondary sources, to a non-trivial extent. --bonadea contributions talk 14:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Meadors and the way he does his job is what makes him a notable person. Juno771 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Not in the sense that "notability" is used in Wikipedia policy speak, Juno771. See WP:42 for a simple definition of how the term is used here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the sources don't establish that he was the one to apply for the grants. They appear to be grants held by academics at the university while he was president. As a consequence, I don't see how they belong in an article about him. FranWiki isn't "approved" by Wikipedia in any sense, Juno771, and indeed wikis are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles (see WP:USERGENERATED). If an article on a wiki site is sourced to reliable sources, then those sources would be the ones to cite. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

request to remove excessive negative details

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

My client now feels that the section on his profile that talks of the controversy is unnecessarily large and negative. As the rules state neutrality. I respectfully wish to edit this section to something more appropriate. Smaller section, less negative detail, otherwise, my client will wish to remove all information on the page. Please be fair. And thank you for correcting the links and explaining what I did incorrectly. I am out of the country right now. I will not be able to address this for another few days.24.55.180.171 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the best way to proceed is for edit requests to be made on this talk page; there are a few editors now who watch it and would be willing to comment. If there are changes, give the proposed changes and the references to verify. There was a lot of text removed from the original version, with proper referencing I think a fair amount could be added back. This will also reduce the weight given to the controversy surrounding his most recent academic position. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
If I can speak frankly, you can't have it both ways. Either Wikipedia has an article about Meadors and it is based on what the available reliable sources say without censorship, or Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him. I don't know which of the paid editors you are, as you haven't signed into your account, but a paid editor argued for keeping the article when that was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Meadors. Meadors can't make the case for an article about himself, but then say he only wants it to feature material that he approves of. See WP:LUC and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for some relevant discussion of this situation. Of course, if you have reliable sources that demonstrate that anything in the article is factually incorrect, then that is a different matter and the material should be corrected. I also agree with Primefac that other aspects of the article can and should be expanded, which would reduce the relative weight given to the UCA controversy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It appears that this conversation has gone off into a direction of "Dewey Won" was a headline so it must be true. The issues around Meadors departure was very politic and had little to do with fact. It is appreciated that the monitors have removed several false or misleading statements that was picked up from primarily editorial articles. We would suggest they do the same with the attempt of humor by Max Brantley. Max is a nice guy but this statement


This can hardly be seen as a factual statement.
The addition comments also stated "^^^^^^reached a negotiated plea for a violation of the Arkansas Freedom of Information (FOI) Act". This was not negoatated,it was offered to Dr.Meadors in lieu, of returning from overseas where he was working, , pay a $250 FOI fine verses several thousand of dollar in travel and lodging cost plus court related cost to have a hearing on a She said/he said, The attached article is very bias but it does point out that it was the Chairman of the Board that provide the misstatements not Meadors (in reality Meadors never made any statements regarding the offer from the food vender, it was the Chairman of the Board decision on how to present it to the board. Meadors is to be faulted for not catching the Board Chair's miscommunication. The food service letter to the VP is attached to this article ( http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/aug/30/meadors-charged-uca-food-vendor-case-20120830/) You will note that "5" people was copied on the letter to the VP (Meadors not being one of them), so the asking the VP to throw away her copy would have accomplished nothing.
We only ask that the monitors seek to be fair and just to the intent of a factual Wikipedia page and not allow misleading information be presented. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Your point regarding the quote above is valid, and I've removed it. The rest is pure malarky. This article says "Meadors entered a negotiated plea bargain for a violation of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act". this source says "Meadors was charged with tampering with a public document for asking ... Newton to destroy a letter from food vendor Aramark". Both of those statements are echoed in the article with no added spin or bias. It doesn't matter if five people received a copy - he asked one person to destroy their copy and was charged for it. Are you suggesting that every news story about this case is factually inaccurate? Because I don't. One or two more editorialized pieces may get coy, like with your quote above, but the facts are still there, and facts are what are currently in the article. Either prove that every single story is false, or accept the fact that Meadors isn't a saint. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for your review of the additional statement that you added to this Wikipedia page. Since you have based most of your opinion on this incident the articles, does it not bother you that they quote


Roussel was the Chairman of the Board to whom the President reports. The article specifically says that it was "Roussel" who made the announcement. It was his Board committee that was reviewing the structural issues surrounding the University house not the President.
You can't see the bias in the reporter writing? States one fact but "suggest" another. As we have mentioned, this was a political issue among the board. This was the reason Meadors resigned.
Meadors accepts that in retrospect, he should challenged the Chair's presentation but since there was a former board process before any contract could be renewed,he fail to make an issue in public of the Chair's comment. Six months later the University did renew the Food Vendors contract.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports what reliable third-party sources say. This whole "Meadors thinks in hindsight" thing has not been reported in such sources, and so it is not going to end up in the article. Additionally, you are not giving me any indication of where these magical quotes are coming from, so I can't even check them in-context. They're definitely not in the five sources used in the "Controversy" section.
I'm honestly getting a bit tired and frustrated with attempting to parse out what you're saying amidst all of the "we don't want to hurt Meador's feelings". I would appreciate clear statements and specific points that you would like to address. Please also add links to references when you're presenting quotes (as I did earlier). In other words - what specifically do you want us do look at. I think I can speak for the majority of the (relatively) neutral editors who have edited this page recently that the "Controversy" section isn't going anywhere. Are there specific facts in the article as it currently reads that are incorrect? If so, please provide evidence so that we can work on a solution. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2016
The quote came from the article written by the same Deborah Hale Shelton which was attached above. You referenced the article yourself earlier. So the magical quotes are in the article shown above. As previously pointed out, the article gives a fact " Roussell said"', switches to infer Meadors said it. It was really a sad time for the University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I have never read that article, and I definitely didn't reference it (it's behind a paywall and I don't feel like paying). It is also not used in the article, so whatever issues you have with the verifiability and/or accuracy of that particular reference are moot. Also, please stop breaking up the discussion with silly lines of symbols; either indent using colons or just type as normal. Primefac (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I included the "prospect of that proceeding apparently led to the swift decision by Meadors that it was time to go" quote to make it clear that Meadors resigned rather than being fired, but I agree it's not the best quote. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


We made some additions with reference material and someone removed. What was the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it was because the URLs were broken. I have fixed the issue. Please give me a few minutes to read through the articles (I have access now) and propose a new wording for the back half of that paragraph. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
To reiterate: Pointer22 and Cordless Larry, I think we should all come up with a consensus here about what should be included, rather than continually edit and revert each other on the main article. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
we there a reason why the following couldn't be added in the controversey section - Meadors and the Chairman of the Board of Director reportedly did not inform the board". Just making a notation as to why for my records. Thank you.Juno771 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I've already answered this question below, Juno771. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hale-Shelton, Debra. "Meadors charged in UCA food vendor case". www.arkansasonline.com. Retrieved 4 December 2016. "Meadors and Scott Roussel, who was then chairman of UCA’s board of trustees, had described to other trustees the Aramark offer as a donation. Neither mentioned that the offer was contingent upon renewal of the vendor’s seven-year contract with UCA — a condition first reported by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on Aug. 31, 2011." Quote from same source that is listed already and requested by another editor to be added weeks ago as well.Juno771 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Juno771. That source is listed in the further reading section, but isn't cited in the text, which is why I couldn't find it when you first added this. I'll check it out and add the material to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Larry, I would just like to mention that this material was previously argued by Primfac as well and the whirlwind of deleted materials must have removed this source as it has been part of the discussion before. It gets confusing when sources being used are removed with material and get lost during debates.Juno771 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the information. The other addition was not requested but I have learned that you have to have the last word and would rather be "right" than appear amiable in any way to other's points of view. This was my client's last request or I would not have attempted to add more wordingJuno771 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have to have the last word, Juno771 - I was just ensuring that the material you wanted to add was supported by an inline citation, which is crucially important when living people are concerned, to prevent Wikipedia being open to legal action from those people. I'm not sure what my "other addition" was, but please note that other editors can add material to the article as long as it is properly sourced and meets Wikipedia's other policies. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allen_Meadors/Archive_1&oldid=992288890"