Talk:West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Full PG Coverage for further additions[edit]

Article Title[edit]

I wasn't sure what to call this article, but "Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy" seems pretty good. That phrase appears in the Post Gazette and gets a decent hit count in google.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 January 2015[edit]

There is a clear consensus to move the article. (In fact, per WP:BLP I would arguably be required to close this as move even against a substantial majority opposing it.) That doesn't mean the new title is perfect, so if a better alternative is presented then a new move request can be made. This close does not affect the outcome of the AfD, and naturally it will be superseded if the AfD closes as merge or delete. Sunrise (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy → West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy – There is a concern that having an article named after a person who has not themselves been personally identified as misbehaving in a matter gives the false impression that that individual was directly involved in some way in the controversial actions. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the seemingly sole student involved in this matter was Bresch, but there is no clear evidence that she played any direct role in the conduct which led to the controversy. And I think there could be at least potential WP:BLP concerns with naming an article about a scandalous misrepresentation of fact after the possibly uninvolved living person whose facts were misrepresented. I suppose the same thing might apply to attempted assassinations of celebrities and other articles in which the person whose name is most clearly tied to the incident, like an entirely fictional example, 2069 Ronald Reagen assassination attempt, where it is unclear whether the person named is the target or the targeter. While the controversy related to her MBA, she was not clearly one of those whose actions provoked the controversy, and the current name could be, not unreasonably, indicate that she was, which can raise BLP concerns in some eyes. On the other hand, WVU is not a living person, and it was the actions of its employees which were found questionable, so there is no similar possible BLP concern so far as I can see regarding the new proposed title. Admittedly, it may not be as obvious a title, given the singular nature of the event, and it does seem to, at least potentially, rule out any other similar controversies, but I don't see that there is any reason to worry about possible disambiguation with other articles that don't exist. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe. But you can't discount that her political connections were an important part of the story. I'm tending to think that "WVU" is better than "Heather Breach", but we need to be sure that her name is prominently associated with the situation. Lou Sander (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, believe me, I don't for a second doubt that her political connections, and prominence in business (making her potentially a very big donor for the school) and even the fact that one article said she even attended school at the time as the man who was president of the school at the time of the MBA event were all involved. And I don't rule out some sort of direct, well, statement of opinion from her about what she'd like to be done either. But, unfortunately, I didn't see anything in the sources about that, because, I suppose, only those involved would know anything, and they might not be really open about it. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and move and close ASAP WP:BLP. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's a sensible proposal in accordance with WP:POVTITLE. The juxtaposition of Brech's name and "controversy" implies wrongdoing. That said, I believe we need to leave the existing title in place as a redirect so that readers can find the article.- MrX 04:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per John Carter's rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat This should be an interim step; this one event is a POV fork and should be merged to WVU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article title should describe the subject, and so long as only one student is involved this is the clearest identification. I think the BLP arguments over the name are also overblown, a) because this is a published, recognizable controversy and b) because this isn't really a "negative" thing. Who is a more appropriate hire for a generic drug company trying to break into the pharmaceutical racket -- someone who has a ticket to show they sat in every class, or someone who has the connections and/or cleverness to wangle an MBA degree without taking the classes for it? If they'd gone with the traditional option the company might be lucky if it could arrange permission to sell an aspirin. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit that the admittedly grudging respect others would show to a newbie exec who had the chutzpah to not only misrepresent her own poor academic record, but also the power to get the school to agree to her misreprenstation, is itself something that can be taken as a "badge of honor" of sorts. But I think that there is a slight, perhaps extremely slight, chance that for whatever reason she had somehow been "told" she had completed her degree earlier by someone she trusted, maybe her fellow student who later became college president. The admittedly slight ambiguity there might be significant. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- the proposed title makes it sound like there was a pervasive problem with WVU MBAs, and in fact it was only Bresch's that became an issue covered in sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I find John Carter's assertions above persuasive, and I'm also inclined towards Alanscottwalker's outcome. Certainly this involved one student, but the scandal, such as it is, entirely involves actions taken by WVU officials and personnel actions involving those officials after their apparent misconduct was discovered and publicized in the press. No great scrutiny would have been applied to such misconduct (again, IMHO) if a student not connected to a national politician had been involved. BusterD (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • People keep saying that Bresch had no role in this affair. This makes me wonder how closely y'all are reading. The origin of the incident is that Bresch was claiming to have an MBA that she did not in fact have. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if that was it, it would go as a few sentences in her article - in the appropriate context of her life accomplishments and failures but that's not it - the University agreed that she had the degree - it's overwhelmingly a UWV story and needs that context (within its accomplishments and failures) so as not to have the BLP/UNDUE/POV Fork/ONEEVENT problems. In the meantime, we can get rid of the personally abusive title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In most cases, when questioned on such a subject the institution would offer up records to demonstrate the falsity of the claim. And at this point, the issue would rest mostly on the claimant. Though WVU started down this path, the institution backpedaled so far as to not only offer Bresch a degree retroactively, but appeared to doctor grade reports in order to justify the degree awarded. At that point the controversy focus shifted to the institution. No evidence that Bresch was involved in this effort at all, but lots of RS which shows WVU officials were directly involved. HR actions after this seem to demonstrate culpability and corruption. Nobody has asked Bresch to resign or step down. This is a Bresch error, IMHO, but a WVU controversy. BusterD (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well put. Bresch made a mistake, or, possibly, distorted the truth/lied about her record. I have to assume she knew she didn't have an MBA, but that is an assumption. The school, however, was in a position to know conclusively, and chose to doctor the records. Bresch would not be the first person to lie about their record. Brian Dennehy among others misrepresented or lied about their service in Vietnam, and that issue has been recorded in their biographies as is appropriate. But the government didn't lie to back them up. Considering that the school did lie, it makes it harder to be 100% sure that Bresch was herself sure that her earlier statement was wrong, as we have no clear evidence to indicate that she would have. I acknowledge it is hard to believe she didn't know, but stranger things have happened. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The long-lasting effect on this event was to the institution, not the person. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for all the reasons above. Could be briefly referred to/cross-referenced in Bresch's own article, but the real issue here, which justifies a separate article, was what seemed to be corruption within high levels of the university's administration. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support name change per BLP-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BLP and because WVU was the prime actor. Herostratus (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per many comments and discussions above. Lou Sander (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - searching for "west virginia university mba controversy" pulls up relevant pages, with no incorrect ones on the first page. Per BLP, this would be a better title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect[edit]

There is currently a redirect from "Heather Bresch M.B.A. Controversy" to this article, which was automatically created when User:Sunrise moved the page. This seems to defeat the purpose of the article renaming, since the original page title that was deemed a BLP issue still tops search results for "Heather Bresch" as a redirect page. Sunrise directed me to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, which at-a-glance seems to say that non-neutral redirect pages are acceptable, unless it's a BLP issue. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate for me to nominate the redirect for discussion myself or what the proper etiquette was... I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 02:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you write up a statement, I'm happy to make an RfD nomination on your behalf to avoid any potential COI concerns. Sunrise (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The article was renamed due to BLP concerns. Leaving a redirect behind seems to defeat the purpose of moving the page." CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I filed the RFD with similar wording.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contents[edit]

The article is now about the university and its acts. No reason to stress the name of a living person about whom there is no claim of wrong-doing. Cites mention the name, but mentioning it in the current article seems improper. Collect (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree -- those are woefully inadequate reasons to omit the identity of the person who was "granted" the non-existent degree. She was the only one, see... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD discussion seems clear. There is no reason to stress her name in the body of the article, she is still mentioned by name in the sources which is reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Show me her name in the title of this article if you wish to include it at great length (2K characters or well over 20% of the entire article). Collect (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading up on WP:BLPNAME. It says the decision for whether to mention a BLP by name in a scandal depends on how notable they are, whether they are a public figure, if they are complicit in the scandal, the opportunity to prolonging a victim's suffering and whether the article loses value/context without it. It says not to rely on press sources for making the decision. It's interesting to read that, because I was taught by Keithbob not to mention minor BLPs (like family members) by name as per policy, but have consistently found consensus to be against me. CorporateM (Talk) 14:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: Bresch is notable (has her own article); is a public figure (CEO of a major corporation); and was complicit in the event by virtue of claiming to have an MBA that she didn't actually have (wasn't awarded when she "finished" her coursework -- indeed didn't finish her coursework). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would include it in this case, as it would be difficult to write the article without it (context/value argument), but I am significantly less aggressive regarding BLP concerns as most. CorporateM (Talk) 14:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Just to note as well that I took it at face value that BLPNAME asks us to consider (among other things) whether someone was "complicit" etc. On looking at the link, I don't see a passage to that effect. Is there another place where these elements are mooted? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I think I got that from "not directly involved". I might have also mixed it up a bit with the section on "Presumption of privacy" because I was trying to type quickly to avoid edit-conflicts I was getting. Although the policy says this in the context of mentioning family members by name, I would cite "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject," as even if Bresch was not the primary actor of the scandal, much of it is based on her relationship with the individuals that are and it would be hard to explain the scandal without mentioning her by name. CorporateM (Talk) 14:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a POVfork, and nothing will change that until it is merged one day (the sooner the better). Indeed, it is already covered by a paragraph in the WVU article and more detail can be added to the History of WVU article but as a compromise on this issue, I would support moving the BLP name out of the first sentence and the lead (the lead does not even name the at fault university officials) and it can stay in the body. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That will be a tough AfD to close. Doing a quick scan, it looks like about 13 keep votes and 10 delete or merge votes. Lots of good arguments on all sides. CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the arc of history is long and actual historical and contextual perspective is sometimes lacking but consensus changes often for the better. We sometimes leave it for the future to render their, 'what the hell were you thinking.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all that tough, apparently: [3]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nomoskedasticity. Let's not lose sight of common sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My own common sense says the topic is notable and well-sourced, and in its current place avoids BLP problems and undue critical pollution of the various WVU articles. Lou Sander (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's already covered on the WVU article where POVFORK and actual commonsense leads one to say it belongs. Part of the reason for the rule against POVFORK's is to prevent the sidelining of relevant issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Heather Bresch[edit]

Editors that have participated in the discussion and AfD here may also have an interest in a Request for Comment on the Heather Bresch article located at: Talk:Heather_Bresch#Request_for_Comment. CorporateM (Talk) 01:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Virginia_University_M.B.A._controversy&oldid=1212591473"