Jump to content

User talk:ElKevbo

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

John Jay Article

[edit]

Hey, I don't know how to leave a signature so sorry about that but saw your edit. Those were college majors (have provided a link to the correct source), I don't know if it's against WP policy to list the majors the college offers (if it does, please feel free to let me know or undo it and I apologize) but wanted to give you the heads up. Anyway, it is dedicated to Criminal Justice, hence the college's name (John Jay College of Criminal Justice). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.108.33 (talk • contribs) 22:16, November 4, 2021 (UTC)

Freed-Hardeman University

[edit]

Thanks for your feedback on the edit! I wanted to share why I think it should stay.

The letter from the university clearly states its beliefs and values, which is important for understanding its conservative stance. Plus, being a Church of Christ university, I think that alone should indicate its ideological position.

I get that firsthand sources can sometimes be viewed as biased, so I'm also looking for additional sources that touch on this. If you have any suggestions, I’d love to hear them!

Thanks for considering my points! Jdawg8677 (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at how this is handled at Hillsdale College - that college is explicitly labeled as "conservative" in the lede and there has been a lot of discussion in the article's Talk page and edit history over that label. In general, editors usually insist on really high quality sources for that kind of label in the lede sentence of an article. ElKevbo (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So editors would prefer journalists to define conservatism rather than the school itself.
I appreciate the insight. Thank you. Jdawg8677 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't prefer journalists - we prefer reliable sources that are independent from the subject of an article. That often includes (good) journalists but it also includes scholars and other experts. The opinion or preferred description of a subject has some weight in some instances but we're also very aware that those can sometimes be self-serving, inaccurate, or outright wrong. So we generally prefer to rely on others who we hope are independent and perhaps more objective; ideally there are multiple such sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get the concern about an institution's own statements being self-serving, but their Title IX exemption application is important because it comes from the Department of Education. It reflects a legally binding official position that underscores the university's commitment to conservative values. The Church of Christ affiliation also plays a key role in defining the institution's stance, particularly on social issues like gender roles and LGBTQ+ rights, and the Title IX exemption just reinforces this. If you don't see a Title IX exemption as aligning with American ideological conservatism, I think we might have a bit of a political disconnect here. If it helps, I could also cite the legal document that grants their exemption. Jdawg8677 (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your interpretation. But we don't add labels to Wikipedia articles based on the viewpoints of individual editors nor do we engage in our interpretation and synthesis of facts to draw conclusions - we rely on reliable sources. I know that can sometimes be frustrating but ultimately it's a sound practice that keeps the encyclopedia from becoming mired on disagreement and conflict as editors use it to express their own beliefs and practices regardless of others'. ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify that this is not a matter of synthesis or personal opinion. The Title IX exemption is a legally binding public record filed with the Department of Education, reflecting the university’s stance on key social issues like gender roles and LGBTQ+ rights. This exemption is not just an internal statement, nor is it an 'interpretation,' but a formal document with legal consequences that aligns itself with defining conservative values. Jdawg8677 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that most other Wikipedia editors would agree with me that an editor using a primary source to label a subject is indeed original research. But you're welcome to ask others for their opinions - WT:UNI or WP:ORN may be good places to seek additional opinions and advice. ElKevbo (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colby College library

[edit]

Hello,

You have now removed my edit about the Olin Science Library being repurposed two times. The library has literally been non-existent for two years. There are no references saying that it no longer exists because nobody wrote about it. But given that I see it 5 days I week I can assure you that it is no longer there. The closest "reference" that I can find is the absence of it on the Colby Libraries page: https://libraries.colby.edu/about/ It is important that people know the library no longer exists, but what do you do in this case? 108.183.178.64 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the typical approach is to simply remove it from the article. We can't say that it was closed and some other thing was added in its place without a source. But if it's no longer included in a source that's already referenced (or can be easily added) then we can just omit it. ElKevbo (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ElKevbo. That makes a good deal of sense, but I suppose that I also think that it's important for people searching for the library and people learning about the libraries to know that there was indeed a science library that used to exist, but it no longer does. It's relevant and informative history. If we just remove it, it's like the science library never existed. That means, for instance, when people read about the science library at Colby on the Olin Foundation Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._Olin_Foundation), they will see that it existed, but then there is no mention of it on Colby's page. People will likely see references to the library elsewhere beyond Wiki and will notice the discrepancy of some places referring to it, but it being missing from Colby's Wiki.
I get your point about what it was repurposed into, but I still feel that it is relevant information since Colby has been all over all the news (e.g., NYT, NPR) about the AI and entrepreneurship initiatives. I don't have as strong as an argument for it, other than it is relevant information contemporarily for those learning about the college, but will likely be less relevant over time, like lots of other information that is on Wiki.
To those ends, I think I made a compelling argument to include that the science library used to exist and no longer does and what took the library's place. Thank you. 108.183.178.64 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) How sure are you that no one wrote about the library being repurposed? I'm going to guess that if we dig deep enough, there's probably some announcement about it somewhere. Even if it's from a not-normally-reliable source such as a Facebook post from Colby's library account, under WP:ABOUTSELF we could use it. Sdkb talk 18:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth thinking about "due weight". That's the idea that we are not obligated to write about everything even when it's documented in reliable sources. We still practice editorial discretion in figuring out what is appropriate for inclusion in encyclopedia article. In particular, if something is not included in reliable sources or only briefly mentioned in those sources then it probably isn't something we should include in an encyclopedia article.
This is our current, best advice about what we think should be included in most articles about colleges and universities and it might be helpful as you think about this particular topic. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you respond to my argument above rather than citing a general set of guidelines. The addition or removal of a significant college facility, like a library, written in a neutral point of view—like I suggested—do fit within these guidelines to me. 108.183.178.64 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not without a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia article, not a publication of the college or a general guide about the college. ElKevbo (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But even though there is no reliable source to say it is not there, you think it is acceptable to scrape the information off the page? It seems more appropriate and informative to say that it no longer exists than attempting to make its existence disappear when there are other webpages, articles, websites, and other information saying it exists. Do you know what I mean? I mean, the library literally does not exist and it is not in the preview of "reliable sources" to write about it: it's an objective fact. 108.183.178.64 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an awkward situation when something significant changes and the relevant organization makes no public announcement or acknowledgement. Other editors at WT:UNI or WT:RS may have better advice. ElKevbo (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty certain. I live in the small town where Colby is located, I'm an employee of Colby, I was surprised that I never heard anything about in the regional news, Colby made the announcement at the end of the semester so the school paper didn't have time to write about it, and the few papers that cover the area returned nothing in a search. Also, it's not really "news" since it is a private institution and therefore doesn't ostensibly affect the public. 108.183.178.64 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did they make the announcement? Sdkb talk 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing

[edit]

Apologies but I think you'll need to explain to me why COI edit requests can be processed without a declaration of employer being made somewhere. WP:COI seems to be quite clear on this point, albeit that WP:DISCLOSE gives 3 alternative locations for the declaration to be made. Axad12 (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the request should have been more explicit, including a more explicit acknowledgement of the actual COI. However, I do think that they should be given some credit for having made the good-faith effort to make a COI request even if they didn't do it completely correctly especially since their requested edits were very straight forward and supported by sources.
I also think that maybe a more welcoming and appreciative approach may have been warranted in this situation given that they've already shown a willingness to engage with our policies and practices. Flies, honey, vinegar, and all that, right? ElKevbo (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I understand the final sentence of your response above, however I don't see what the problem was in waiting for a declaration to be made before implementing the user's request.
To be honest I think it shows a very odd set of priorities to quibble over the semantics of the word "should" and then to take action while completely ignoring the very obvious meanings of the words "must" and "required". Axad12 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reverted the recent implementation of the COI edit request.
The background here is that the user had previously been making mainspace edits on a related article, and appears to have only made the recent COI edit request because the present page has a degree of protection.
So, it seems to me that a declaration of COI on the user's user page would be desirable to prevent them from falling inadvertently into UPE territory.
Hopefully this clarifies. Axad12 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the COI declaration o my profile; if I need to make changes to better comply with rules, please let me know. I really was not trying to do anything untoward; just trying to make the pages factually accurate. Appreciate external guidance on suggested edits that don't feel explicitly unbiased. Facereiusrei (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for making the declaration, much appreciated. I shall re-implement the changes that were made earlier today. If memory serves there was some info outstanding re: some other elements of the request, which no doubt you will come back with in due course. Thanks again. Axad12 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&oldid=1248140803"