Talk:Boyce Watkins

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lack of Notability

This person is NOT notable and this is just an advertisement for his aggrandisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.255.152 (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I attended the University of Kentucky while he was there and tired of his grandstanding and standing protests at Patterson office tower. I understand and applaud wanting to make your mark on this world but this article reads like it was authored by the subject. Chrismeece (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Misleading language

Nowhere in this article does it even state what this person received a PHD from. Or when specifically they received it. There is no information at all on this person's education, not even on their on linkedin profile beyond saying they attended the University of Kentucky (no specific degree even mentioned). In this wiki page it says that he went to India, Rochester, then Ohio State to finish a PHD. That isn't how PHD programs work - you don't bounce around schools finishing it. I call absolute and complete bull$hit on this guy. And the WSJ article where he received the "Outstanding Finance Graduate Award" isn't even a fuking award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.164.3 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This article states, "He was the only African American in the world earn a PHD in Finance during the year 2002." This is highly misleading because African Americans are mostly only found in America. The vast majority of the world's black people are not American, and thus not African American. Saying that he was the only African American in "the world" to earn a PhD in Finance exaggerates the (unverified) accomplishment. The wording is also demeaning toward blacks who are not American. The wording should be changed to either "he was the only African American in the United States..." or "he was the only black person in the world...". --JHP (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, this is poor choice of wording. In regards to verification, the National Science Foundation releases an annual report on the results of a survey of earned doctorate degrees. They have the report posted from the 2002 survey (the year Watkins earned his PhD), including demographic breakdowns by subfield ([1]), and it does say that only one PhD was awarded in "Business Management: Banking/Financial Support Services" (p. 87 of the report), however I still have several issues:

1. The survey indicates it had a 91% response rate, so while unlikely, there could conceivably be another African-American finance PhD that did not respond.
2. Not all doctoral programs label their degrees in the same fashion, and as such degrees with similar content but differing titles may not always fall into the same category, or in any specific category at all. In this particular instance there are 6 PhD's earned by African-Americans that are listed in the "Business Management/Administrative Services: General" and "Business Management/Administrative Services: Other" with no further elaboration as to what those respondents' courses of study entailed.
3. Some more context should be provided about the relative significance of Watkins' PhD. The information available from the SED surveys indicate [2] that only a very small number of banking/finance PhD's are awarded in general (~35 to U.S. citizens from 1998-2004), so while African-Americans earned only a few of them (1998 - 2; 1999 - 3; 2000 - 0; 2001 - 0; 2002 - 1; 2003 - 1; 2004 -2), the percentage of finance PhD's awarded to African-Americans varied considerably from year to year. This issue should be addressed, since the tone of the statement suggests that Dr. Watkins' degree is exceptional because a disproportionately small share of finance PhDs are awarded to African-Americans (it may still be a good point to make, but there should probably be more discussion around it).
4. The original source for this claim appears to be Watkins himself from (unsubstantiated) statements on his website and in written columns/blog posts. All other biographical references I have located appear to copy this statement verbatim, suspect wording and all.

Even with the SED report providing some confirmation, I believe the wording of the statement still puts it at odds with both the verifiability and conflict of interest policies. Any discussion of the significance of Dr. Watkins' PhD should be brought up later in the article and include supporting information, along with a more neutral tone.Acedork87 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

citation needed tagging

Regarding the prolific use of 'citation needed' tags on the article.

I've removed the (very) numerous 'citation needed' tags, since this type of tagging, after every sentence, is not encouraged in the manual of style. A better use of time would be to actually look for more sources. The tag at the top of the article remains and should be suitable in informing the reader than anything not referenced does not (yet) have a source. Numerous tagging looks very aggresive and is distracting. Nihola (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Research methods of Dr. Boyce Watkins

This article http://thyblackman.com/2011/05/06/dr-boyce-watkins-south-park-goes-after-tyler-perry/ sheds some light on what's the difference between a booger and original research by Dr. Watkins (hint: none).213.39.136.33 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boyce Watkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130728094947/http://suds.syr.edu/suds/sudsdetail.pl?ID=E62657e623c65e5626374670c6de65a0618116606ba303e3e3774368c5a677e6204 to http://suds.syr.edu/suds/sudsdetail.pl?ID=E62657e623c65e5626374670c6de65a0618116606ba303e3e3774368c5a677e6204

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lil Wayne Boyce Watkins controversy

In the Lil Wayne, Boyce Watkins controversy, Dr. Watkins accused Lil' Wayne of glorifying violence in return for payment from a "White and Jewish overseer". This edit has been placed multiple times, but the editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevietheman has removed it several times first claiming that it was not noteworthy and then that it violated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. All attempts have been made to resolve this dispute. Stevietheman has stated that primary quotes need to be noteworthy and that they require secondary sources. These are rules invented by Stevietheman. The direct quote by Dr. Watkins helps provide context as to the nature of the Wayne/Watkins controversy. Please suggest how to incorporate the quotation. Teh link to the video is White and Jewish overseerquotation comes from minute 8:50 - 9:30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.181.194 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It is clear here that you have extracted a comment from a primary source video to push a POV, without that content having been covered by reliable secondary sources. I didn't invent these requirements. With biographies of living persons, we are required to take special care with having balanced coverage based on reliable secondary sources, especially when it comes to incendiary or potentially defaming content.

That Watkins' quote "helps provide context as to the nature of the Wayne/Watkins controversy" is your personal opinion. Which secondary news source couched it in those terms? That is all I have asked of you: Provide secondary sourcing for the claim. If you don't, it's problematic to add under WP:BLP. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not a pov that he spoke that statement. That is a citeable quote directly related to the theme of this section. Secondary sources are not needed for citing primary sources. The edits make no claims about the nature of that quotation. If quoting people is a violation of biographies of living people then all quotes should be removed. It appears that your personal bias is influencing what quotations should be allowed and that is unacceptable.

Show me one reliable secondary source that reported on this. You on your own deciding that it's important to include makes it's your biased opinion. I am not going by my opinion at all -- I per Wikipedia's policies/guidelines want to see reliable source coverage (i.e., the media's editorial opinion to cover it). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. You seem believe primary citations of living people require secondary source coverage to make them reliable. This is a rule of your own invention. I would suggest you brush up on the rules. This has been posted for dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C753:B0D2:7156:7A8:3C0E:4A5F (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not my position. What isn't reliable is the context you are choosing, because that context hasn't been covered by secondary sources, and therefore isn't a noteworthy thing to add, except in your opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The very selective quoting appears to be POV pushing, trying to paint a picture of the subject that isn't flattering, and that causes issues re: WP:BLP. Again, it's the editor here deciding the context rather than a reliable secondary source. Editors cannot decide context like this. The context must be covered somewhere. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The context of the quotation is Dr Boyce Watkins addressing Lil Wayne. This is not a POV. Furhthermore no picture is being created and asserting that is merely asserting your POV. The context of the quote is self evident as Dr Boyce watkins can be seen speaking as he addresses Lil Wayne. Furthermore there is plenty of secondary coverage on the LiL Wayne Watkins controversy. That is precisely why the section exists. Other quotes appear in the section without citations and you have merely atempted to whitewash a documented observable fact because you feel that fact paints a picture. Furthermore you have invented rules to exert a form of dominance. Please cite the page and line where it says that primary quotations require secondary sources? Also no rule states that secondary sources are required for establishing context.if this is the case cite it. Furthermore asserting that any secondary source addresses a given context merely breaks your own rule as that itself would require tertiary sources to establish that context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C753:B0D2:7156:7A8:3C0E:4A5F (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comments. Your additional comments here are merely taking this discussion into a circle. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

At any rate, if you insist on this content being added, you could start an RfC about it. I will abide by a consensus coming from that, and when that proceeds I will dig deep and provide all the documentation that backs my position. The reason I would prefer to do it that way is that I've already sensed some moving goalposts here, and even if I quoted a ton of stuff, you might still be pushing to add this quote for yet another reason. Please start an RfC. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I would hope you sense moving goal posts as you have been doing some heavy lifting. I have stood consistent in stating that primary sources do not require secondary source verification or notability. Notability is required for entire articles and sections of articles, not primary source quotations. You have stood by your statements but have yet to cite the source of those rules and only directed me to pages that confirm my claims. Additionally you have accused me of expressing my POV by directly citing Mr Watkins. But that said I am happy to move forward with an RFC. If indeed it is true that primary quotations require secondary sources for notability, we'll have a lot of editing to do not only on this page but on Wikipedia in general. We might as well move forward as quickly as possible.

For the time being, since you'd rather waste our time and a that of a third party, I'll provide some basic instruction.

1) Notability is a requirement of articles, not the content within articles. 2) Content within an article must be verifiable. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." [3] Note that articles must be notable and content must be verifiable. 3) "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria." [4] 4) Article content must be verifiable. Meaning "that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". [5] 5) Article content must also provide a neutral POV and show no Original research. Direct quotes fulfill those requirements.

I hope in the future that you can take the time to read the above "stuff" rather than waste other people's time.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.221.177 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 

Re 1 and 3, I have never referred to 'notability' in any argument I've ever made about this matter. Also, it's never a waste of time to clarify editors on policies and guidelines, and gain consensus on how an article should be presented. Have you reviewed WP:RS and WP:BLP before, for instance? Also, your decision (and not the journalistic decision of a secondary reliable source) that the quote fits into the context is likely POV, so also review WP:NPOV. Have a great weekend. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: "If indeed it is true that primary quotations require secondary sources for notability", this is not a complete or accurate statement of my position. This is a good reason for an RfC, so you can review a range of opinions based on policy/guidelines, as you are clearly missing a large part of what I've been trying to tell you. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

My argument is in part based on WP:BALASPS, where it says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." First, there's no "body of reliable sources" to begin with (which is what I was requesting, not asking for proof of the article subject's notability), but instead your primary source quote pull. What a secondary journalistic source would provide is an indication of the weight of that remark. If all you have is a quote without any coverage of it, you, the editor, are deciding its significance, instead of what we expect in the Wikipedia, a third-party journalistic presentation. If nobody has covered it, how do we know its significance? Just because an editor thinks it relates to something else the subject said (that was covered), that doesn't mean the additional quote has due weight. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Reflecting on our discussion and in all seriousness, I would like to extend my apologies. I am guilty of having a negative attitude when approaching this discussion. I do disagree with your editorial correction, but cannot honestly say that I have handled this in a respectful and appropriate manner. I believe that the quote should remain as a primary source but want to change the tone of this discussion and I believe I can spend my time more productively.

There are more important battles in life. Thanks and good luck

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boyce Watkins. 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/20110723032237/http://www.boycewatkins.net/research.htm to http://www.boycewatkins.net/research.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527203526/http://www.tsu.edu/pages/3175.asp to http://www.tsu.edu/pages/3175.asp

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)