Talk:Wallace L. Hall Jr.

BLP

Patrkdeepak and Tech.syn, I will give you 48 hours to fix the egregious problems with this article before I remove every single unsourced sentence in accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons. Please consider this a courtesy, as the policy actually says that such material should be deleted immediately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Patrkdeepak, the refs you added have to be added inline so that they are tied to the sentences they support. Please read WP:Inline citation for more information. Also, I urge you to read WP:BLP carefully, as people here take that policy very seriously. And, if you wish to communicate with a fellow editor it's better to use article talk pages such as this one, or if the communication isn't tied a specific article, then use their user talk page. See Help:Using talk pages for more info. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Inline citations are critical. The article should also be edited for brevity. (The soul of wit). I will begin efforts to improve the article and add inline refs as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Move to Wallace Hall

I don't have time for this right at the moment, but this article should be moved to Wallace Hall per our naming guidelines. The existing dab page should be removed, and a hatnote should be added to this article directing to Wallace Hall Academy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

copyright violating pics

I removed pics from this article - they were all copyright violations - please see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Texas_admissions_controversy - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP-sources and POV tags

Capitalismojo, I'm fine with the removal of both tags but I have some lingering questions/concerns:

• BLP-sources: Most of the content now appears to be properly sourced, but there is still some unsourced content here and there. Given the contentiousness of the subject matter everything in this article should be sourced.
• POV: Has there really been no commentary critical of Hall?

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with restoring the tags if you want. I'm sure there is probably more critical commentary out there(although legislative censure in the lead pretty much covers the key crit). I'll look for more refs. What line/section/area in particular should we start with? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The vindication of Wallace Hall

There are an increasing number of national and state newspapers that have referred to the "vindication" of Wallace Hall. I don't see any of them in the article yet. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

From the Dallas Observer:

The dramatic denouement is threefold: Hall has been vindicated of charges he abused his role as a regent. The charges of mismanagement and corruption he brought against UT are all being re-investigated because now people are admitting he was on to something.

And finally, Hall's biggest accusers are starting to look like the biggest rats, the ones who had the most to hide.In fact it's hard to recall a case in Texas history where a person so roundly denounced has been so completely vindicated, not counting Sam Houston's problems with drink.

Perhaps it's time to add a new section. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also from the Wall Street Journal: "A new report vindicates a trustee who dug into univeristy favoritism." Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

From Texas Scorecard magazine "OAG Investigation Vindictaes Wallace Hall." Capitalismojo (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting! "Vindication" is as strong a term as one can come up with. I think it can be used, albeit with attribution, a la "The Dallas Observer, the Wall Street Journal, and Texas Scorecard have described the report as vindicating Hall of X." I leave that "X" because I'm not quite clear how he's been vindicated: of the claims against him, or of the claims he's made against others? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it? By the way I was about to post a couple more of those "vindication" articles. (Dallas Morning News, etc) But you responded too fast. :) Capitalismojo (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on something in a sandbox and bring it over here for a try. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Here's one from a magazine sponsored by the University, the Texas Tribune.

Vindication for UT, if you want to read it that way: Top-level interference in admissions is relatively rare. Vindication for Hall, read another way: He was on to something

.::::As you said, Interesting. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a whole paragraph on how these RSs are describing the report as vindicating Hall may be appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. So far I have found the following RS talking about "vindication": Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Texas Monthly, Texas Tribune, Houston Community Newspapers, Dallas Observer, Austin Statesmen, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Reason, Chronicle of Higher Education. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings,

The page strikes me as non-neutral, a largely triumphal description of a controversial individual. Too much verbiage from supporters and even the subject himself (and his point of view); too much coverage from the Wall Street Journal. Hall remains a highly contentious figure, and there's little here to suggest that.

Serious revisions seem in order.

B802818827 (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)B802818827