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 (talkcontribs) 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]

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]

COI discussion

[edit]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 67.213.210.16 (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick 2 questions

[edit]

Hi @ElKevbo,

Hope you're doing well. I've been looking at a few university articles and I realized that I may have missed a few conversations. I was hoping you might be able to help me with some possible answers.

  1. I remember at one point "established in" was preferred to "Founded in". I know seem to be seeing more of the latter. Was this discussed somewhere? I have no preference; I just found this interesting.
  2. For the universities which have pictures of some of their notable alumni/faculty, I've seen 1-2 editors claim that this section should be limited to no more than 2 rows but this doesn't seem to be consistent. Was there consensus for how many rows this should be?

Wozal (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any explicit discussion of those two things.
  1. I don't think I've ever seen substantive discussion of "established" versus "founded." One could argue that the language used in the infobox parameter - "established" - is an indication of at least a weak consensus. On the other hand, only "founder" and "founding" are used in the current advice for college and university articles; "establish" isn't mentioned at all. I suspect that good arguments could be made that the words are not perfect synonyms and that each one is appropriate in some circumstances where the other isn't. So developing a consensus that one must be used and the other cannot be used seems unlikely. But developing a consensus on the different meanings that the words and the kinds of situations in which one or both are appropriate may be feasible and productive.
  2. I don't know of any consensus that a particular number of images or rows of images dilineates a difference between "appropriate selection of examples" and "inappropriate gallery of images." "Rows" is not likely a useful indicator as that will vary depending on each reader's device (screen size, resolution, window width, etc.). My reading of the current image use policy is that collections (i.e., galleries) of images are strongly discouraged in favor of selective and tasteful placement of images near relevant text.
Sorry I don't have specific answers! ElKevbo (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) For (1), I concur with ElKevbo. For (2), my understanding is that such galleries are discouraged. One picture for the section is plenty for purposes of visual illustration. Beyond that, it's almost never the case that individual alumni are so important to a college (which will have thousands of them, in addition to many other facets to discuss) as to be due for anything more than a list entry. Sdkbtalk 04:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]