Talk:Baylor University - Wikipedia

Template:Vital article

Someone reverted my post but gave no explanation why? It's a very common criticism. Until I receive a reason, it will be re-entered.

I did not remove your post but I think that it is out of all proportion to the article. If homosexual activist groups have complaint about Baylor then it is a Controversy or Criticism and does not rise to the level of its own heading. Also, it should not take up as much space in the article as it does. Since it is only a minor controversy compared to Baylor’s ongoing struggles with its parent denomination it should take up less space than this.

Baylor is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention; instead, it has chosen in recent years to align itself solely with the more moderate Baptist General Convention of Texas. Consequently, I am removing Baylor from the SBC category, and adding it to Christian schools and universities instead.

Fixed a few minor misspelled words.

Ballastrae has begun an edit war to include a separate "Controversies" header in the "History" section of this article. His or her most recent edit summary was "Updated to clearly indicate Known Controversy and to Clearly Define and Point to the section and not allow for it to be hidden within the confines of the School history. This model fits other University Websites that have been called out for perceived ==Controversies=="

First, it's not helpful to say that the material has been "hidden within the confines of the School [sic] history." The series of incidents described in that paragraph are part of the university's history, not something separate. Moreover, it's inaccurate to describe this as "hidden" when there is an entire article about it. Second, our advice for college and university articles explicitly recommends including "notable controversies such as student protests or reforms" in this "History" section. Some other articles probably do have "Controversies" sections and in most cases those sections should probably be integrated into the history section; this is a volunteer-run project with many thousands of people, many of whom make only a few contributions, so we're not always as consistent as we'd like to be.

Finally, the specific way in which Ballastrae has made this change is sloppy. He or she simply added a level 2 header into the existing history section above the paragraph in question. There is other material unrelated to this paragraph that follows so now we have a listing of university presidents included in the new "Controversies" section. This needs to be fixed but I'm not going to continue Ballastrae's edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

ElKevbo You call me out for clearly identifying an oversight. Yet, you can pull other university pages and the information is clearly identified. The change was made as in the other examples. So, if you are going to critique and call me out, please make sure that you have all of the receipts. The university sections are clearly the most BS pages, as the universities that CLEARLY have controversies have either no controversial information listed, as it was removed, and other universities have to be demeaned. Either they are all the same way or none of them should have a controversy section listed. You can clearly look at Notre Dame Fighting Irish and there is NO controversies listed. Basic Google gives - University settles in Doe lawsuit // The Observer

https://ndsmcobserver.com › 2018/01 › university-settles-doe-lawsuit

Jan 18, 2018 - The lawsuit, filed in April of 2017, alleged Notre Dame mishandled the Title IX case involving the unnamed student — referred to as John Doe ... Notre Dame settles sex discrimination lawsuit with former ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastrae (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

If there are issues in other articles then you are very welcome to bring up those issues in the Talk pages of those articles. But I'm not at all sure how your Notre Dame athletics team example or even the general complaint ("articles about other institutions don't include their controversies") are meaningful in this discussion. To be clear, my objection is not to including this information, merely to segregating into a special "Controversies" section where it is (a) divorced from other (essential) context and (b) specially highlighted based on the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who added it.

(In nearly every case, controversies arise in an immense context of history and culture; my best guess is that many stand-alone controversy sections are written by editors who either don't know that larger context or don't care about it but in either case the reader suffers. We can and should do better even as we push against the limitations of our shared amateurism.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

talk This may be true, but the system has allowed for this. If one tries to adjust to remove the controversy section for some schools then perceived administrators want to chastise and express if that is the concern then add. So, you may not like the concept of clearly defining the role that these schools have taken, but it is extreme hypocrisy to have a some unneeded information about a school from years ago to indicate that the school was on academic probation with the registering body and place it under a controversy section and place things such as rape under the guise of school history. Come on, that makes no logical sense. And then you call me out because you do not agree with the change. Before you post that I am starting edit war, you may want to look at your own post histories and the slaps on the hands that you have received. Per the guidelines that are allowed on Wikipedia, I corrected the Penn State page to clearly show that there is controversy section. Ballastrae (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP:UNI/AG was created by a consensus of editors and should be followed. I agree with User:ElKevbo. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

When did they move from Dallas to Waco? MightyArms (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please see Draft:James Huckins, Draft:Lily Russell, Draft:Roxy Harriette Grove and Draft:Dock Martin, which I found as abandoned user drafts and have moved to Draft space to be assessed or worked on by others. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply