Changes

:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again.  Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it.  To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous.  Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters.  But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder.  Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust.  So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts.  But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc.  If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look?  Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there.  So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources.  You'd also asked about the source for my stats.  I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States.  Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:

:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again.  Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it.  To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous.  Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters.  But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder.  Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust.  So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts.  But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc.  If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look?  Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there.  So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources.  You'd also asked about the source for my stats.  I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States.  Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:

::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.<ref>National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06" [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]</ref>"

::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.[http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]

:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public."  I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors.  The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence.  While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias."  What is liberal about that statement?  I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate.  There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion.  It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch.  In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research.  [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public."  I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors.  The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence.  While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias."  What is liberal about that statement?  I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate.  There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion.  It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch.  In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research.  [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)