Talk:Eve Poole (author)

When reviewing the draft, I rewrote the textto deal with the following: She is definitely notable, but this is still too much like a promotional biographical write up. There are the following specific problems, derived apparently from her promotional writeups copied into the various web sites and announcements. :

1. She is not actually a theologian in the strict sense, tho she has written a book with theology in the title. I'd call her field religious ethics or religious studies. I think the best way to distinguish her is to use her full name, and I have done so. 2. Cambridge does not give doctorates in theology, but in Divinity, and not in Capitalism but in Economics (or History). So a doctorate in "Theology and Capitalism" is an exceptional claim, and needs more reliable osurce, preferably from the university. Her thesis is titled "From the fall of The Wall to the collapse of credit, Church of England views on capitalism 1989-2008" 3. "She pioneered the use of Neuroscience for Leadership Development in designing the Ashridge Leadership Experience " I suppose means she used concepts from neuroscience in designing her business school course. There is no evidence that she pioneered this--all educators have used concepts from neuroscience ever since the field developed. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Outstanding points for discussion

Personal Life Citation required. For the time being I have added a link to an interview that supports some of that although I understand that there will be a who’s who entry sometime soon so that would then replace the interview link. Should I remove the Citation Needed flag now or leave until the final conclusion there with the Who’s Who entry?

She has a personal web page, which would be the better source for this until who's who is available. In any case, that page should be give as the first external link. I've added it. We always give a subjects principal web page, but no other social media links.

I removed the Personal Life Section for the time being, I'll put it back when Whos Who is there and there is a better source for it.KellysHero01 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Theologian vs Administrator. There were many things I thought might not be quite done the right way but describing her as a theologian being contentious took me by surprise. I read your comments and went back over the page and I do see how that could be a questionable assertion given what was purely written on the page. So, I’ve clarified the “She studied theology at Durham University” by adding the award of her BA in it: “She studied theology at Durham University and was awarded a BA in 1993 before going on to work for the Church Commissioners. “. Also, your point about the PhD ambiguity was well-made – it is in Divinity, which I have clarified on the page. I do have a full list of publications, lectures, media, etc. for DR Poole but as it runs to 6 pages(!) I took the decision to only include her four main full-length books. Also, in the course of writing this I discovered a subsequent book due out in August entitled “Buying God: Consumerism and Theology” so I have also added that which hopefully lends more weight to ‘theologian’. Do you think I should add in some selected publications (presumably not all of them) to back up her primary academic allegiance as Theologian? Also, she served as an Associate Research Fellow for two theology think-tanks (William Temple Foundation and St Paul's Institute but unfortunately neither of which have Wikipedia entries (maybe a project for another day(!) so are not too obvious as theological support. Also, I’ve just noticed that I had put links to most of these organisations in an External Links section which has now been removed by another user – should I put those links back in but as references rather than External Links? She has also preached a number of sermons and is introduced as a “Theologian” when she appears on BBC Thought for the Day.

:: The subject of the Theos think tank is    religion and society, which is related to theology but not theology.  I consider the use of theologian to describe here a very  broad and almost meaningless extension of the concept of theology to include all religious studies. eople emphasise different things in different parts of their lives. The subject here spent most of her career as a leadership consultant, with an apparent interest in religious organizations and a religion-oriented approach. Her books have been about organizational behavior, not religion, and have been published by general and business publishers, not academic or religious publishers.    

Ok, I will bow to your greater experience on the topic of 'Theologian' and drop it. However, can we also drop Administrator and just leave it as British Author? I'm not quite sure where Administrator comes from. Maybe because she has an MBA? In England, I think we tend to use Administrator where in the US you would maybe say Clerk and that's why it sounds odd. For example a Payroll Administrator checks timesheets and a Office Administrator makes sure that there is toner for the copier! I don't think anyone with an MBA or even a BA in Business Administration would ever really describe themselves as Administrators, so can we just drop that as well?KellysHero01 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Neuroscience. On the neuroscience point, in many ways she did pioneer the use of neuroscience in leadership development research, the outcome of which is in this peer-reviewed paper she co-authored: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/LODJ-03-2015-0057 Maybe in this section it would be appropriate to say: 'She designed the innovative simulation The Ashridge Leadership Experience, championing the use of neuroscience in researching its effectiveness, and ...'?

judging by the paper's abstract, she measured the subjects' heart rate to show stress impaired learning . Calling that neuroscience is quite a stretch. And Google Scholar shows that paper has been cited only once. I see no other relevant paper by her at all. I think the appropriate thing to do with this aspect of her career is to remove it. It does not seem to exist except for her self-presrentation.

Fair enough.KellysHero01 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation. In some ways I rather regret putting in Catherine Eve Poole as I don’t think she has ever really gone under her full name and it now makes it a little awkward to find her on Wikipedia as you have to look for pages containing Eve Poole otherwise you just get the other Eve Poole. I still quite like the original idea of having the page title as Eve Poole (Theologian) or Eve Poole (Author) to distinguish her from the existing Eve Poole. Is a disambiguation page now the only option?

Her personal web page lists her as "speaker, author, and pioneer of the leadersmithing movement" Google's summary calls her "author". Her professional career has been built around management consulting, not scholarship. So "author" would seem best. Her current position is administration, but it isn't necessary to use more than "author" to distinguish her. I'll move the page accordingly. .

KellysHero01 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok Great thanks.KellysHero01 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

More generally, see my response on my user talk. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)