Talk:DePaul University

Controversy Section requires Black Lives Matter incident

• My edit yesterday has been wrongly removed as 'vandalism' and I can't re-insert it as the page is now protected. The text itself (which I reproduce below) is a neutral summary of Milo Yiannopoulos' recent cancelled talk:

"*In May 2016, protesters disrupted a talk being given on campus by conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, one protester even threatening Yiannopoulos with physical violence. However, university administrators ordered the police not to intervene, and as a result, the talk was cancelled." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.121.19 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• The article needs to cover the recent/ongoing Black Lives Matter/Milo Yiannopoulos controversy. The are numerous sources for this currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.34.217 (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That would seem pretty obviously to run afoul of WP:RECENT. Searching for "black lives matter depaul university" on Google seems to turn up only one source from outside the fever swamps of the right. Maybe there are more if you use different terms, but on its face that hardly seems like a notable event. And DePaul is a major national university; if we listed every occasion that it has received that minimal level of news coverage, this would surely become one of Wikipedia's longest articles. -- Visviva (talk)

This addition should more refer to Milo Yianoppolous and the controversy it caused when school administrators tried to cancel his speaking engagement, then allegedly told police and security to not remove protesters on stage disrupting the event, forcing a cancellation of the event. This was covered by major national news sources and was on TV so it undoubtedly meets notability standards. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I support adding a brief description. This was a bit more than "minor news" in some circles, Washington Post had an article, and it called for a campus president response and numerous faculty responses. It is a controversy. There is no compelling reason to not add a brief comment. Cc131291 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)cc131291

I also agree that there should at least be a brief description of the events. There are now multiple different sources which have covered the story as it has progressed. I don't know what exactly the previous person means by "fever swamps of the right", but I think this shows that he has an unhealthy bias against adding this to the article.Peeky Chew (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This may merit a brief mention but no more than a single sentence. And I don't even think that it merits that much coverage unless it leads to long-term consequences or reliable, non-partisan sources connect it to a larger pattern of events. Without either of those conditions being met this is just a brief, flash-in-the-pan news item without any long-term effect or large scale interest. ElKevbo (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I support adding more than a sentence. It needs ample sourcing but it was a significant controversy that occurred. Recent or not, it is noteworthy to mention. For better flow I say there should be as much information as the other controversies.TJD2 (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• The DePaul University obviously doesn't care about free speech and the physical integrity of guest speakers. Look at the Facebook page: 13K+ voters say that this college is the worst university ever. It has a ranking of 1.1 - which is very bad, if not the worst university ranking of all American universities on Facebook. It's important information and there has been written a lot about it. It has to written in the article, even though DePaul staff might don't want it. --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It's a little hard to follow the edit warring at the moment, because large chunks of unrelated text seem to be getting moved around at the same time. But the substantive dispute appears to be over the same text cited at the top of this thread, referencing a "Huffington Post Contributors" post. (A previous edit about the event had used Breitbart.com as a reference, so I guess this is a step up.) With that in mind, it seems at least mildly relevant to note that the author of that post is a college student without evident journalistic qualifications, and that the footer on the article states "[t]his post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform" and "[c]ontributors control their own work and post freely to our site." I'm sure he's a nice kid, but this is about one step up from an anonymous tumblog. Even if we suppose for a moment that Huffpo Contributors meets WP:RS, that kind of sourcing doesn't really establish the encyclopedic significance of the event. If this event actually attracted significant attention from national media, why aren't those sources being added instead? -- Visviva (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• It seems as though you are trying to discredit the source because you don't agree with it. You have already displayed a bias by using the phrase "fever swamps of the right", so that leads me to this conclusion. If Huffington Post saw fit to hire a college student to write for them, we should not doubt their qualifications just based on age. Huffington Post is a reliable news source, and a reputable website. There is a clear consensus to keep the entry about Yiannopoulos, so if you would like to improve the article you are free to add sources that back up the entry. TJD2 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. Yes, sources cited in Wikipedia must comply with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And yes, Breitbart.com is neither one, and Huffpo personal blogs are also generally neither one. And no, my stating these obvious and uncontroversial facts does not mean I'm biased. 2. I do not see anything resembling a consensus on this page -- excluding SPAs and anons, it looks like about an even split. In any case, a localized consensus cannot override core Wikipedia policies. 3. As I said before: if this actually attracted significant national coverage, why aren't those sources being cited here? And why don't they turn up in a Google search? -- Visviva (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• DePaul student here. The reference from the Huffington Post is actually a personal blog/ commentary rather than a factual source. Also, saying that the University "Ordered the police not to intervene" is very subjective. What is the source for this? a personal blog? there is no factual evidence to support this. DePaul is a huge national university, and covering every single minor event at the university will warrant myriad sections, categories and paragraphs. Thus, I do not think the incident should be mentioned. But, if it were to be mentioned, it has to be objective. In its current form, it is subjective. Khalidmilan (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do understand your concern, but attacking the source's credibility doesn't do either of us any good. Many of the sources on Wikipedia are Op-ed pieces. This is just one person's account of the events, and should not be dismissed based on the grounds that it includes his opinion. I must say, with you being a student at DePaul University, it becomes even clearer that you are trying to defend your school's reputation and that editing this article may be a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you are not allowed to have an opinion though, but we must take into consideration the information you have given us when weighing that opinion. It's the same reason we do not have ownership of articles. TJD2 (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  If you actually believe that op-ed pieces are acceptable sources on Wikipedia (for their factual assertions, not the fact that the writer has a particular opinion), I implore you to consult WP:RS and WP:V. -- Visviva (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Further, examining the reliability of sources is exactly what we should be doing. TJD2, please review the policies that Visviva links above. ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There are MANY op-ed sources on Wikipedia. Just because it has an opinion in it doesn't mean it is invalidated. Not every source is dry with nothing but encyclopedic facts. Every news source has some sort of angle. CNN and Fox for example are practically the exact opposite when it comes to this, yet they are still considered reliable sources when it comes to political articles. This is just one of many examples of why opinion articles are indeed relevant. TJD2 (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• If the incident warrants entry to DePaul's page, mainstream media would have covered the story. If the incident were to be added, there has to be a neutral reliable source. Saying that the administration ordered the police to stand down because some guy on a personal blog said it is appalling. I agree with Visviva's latest edit. Khalidmilan (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: The sources presented so far are not convincing and do not appear to meet our standards for reliability. Editors who believe this material should be included must present reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the person who originally made the request. I've been reading what everyone's been saying and I'd just like to say that the Chicago Tribune has covered the story as well:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-depaul-speech-milo-yiannopolous-breitbart-edit-0601-jm-20160531-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-depaul-milo-yiannopoulos-protest-trump-breitbart-zorn-perspec-20160531-column.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.123.253 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• comment - There needs to be consensus for inclusion since this is new material. --Malerooster (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Again, seeing that DePaul is a large national university, I do not think that this incident is worthy of entry. As for the new references provided, I certainly think the first one is a at least more reliable than the personal commentary blog previously provided. But, taking a look at the url gives you everything; they are both op-eds. I am against the inclusion. However, if the consensus says otherwise, the reference has to be reliable and neutral mainstream-media source.Khalidmilan (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• The consensus is to add it but find better sources, so that's what I am going to do. If there is a problem with the tone maybe it should be reworded, but it is a notable controversy that occured at DePaul. I will be looking for some more sources before I restore the content. TJD2 (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• No, the consensus is to add a reliable source, then to agree whether to add it or not. You keep reverting to the old version, even when others tell you that there is no clear consensus. I will report you for disruptive editing if you do not stop. Also, looking at your phrasing, it seems that you are the one with the bias. Khalidmilan (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not the one going around saying things like Milo is a "toxic figure", and that you are a student at DePaul. It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt you are only interested in protecting your school's reputation. I am adding and citing many new references from professional news outlets such as Washington Times and DePaulia Online to back up the events. I am not just restoring old content, but rewording and adding new content as well. TJD2 (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the fact that your phrasing of the event is more balanced now, there is still no consensus to add the entry. The consensus is split up, and the ones that would like to see an entry to Milo's event stated it should not be more than a sentence. Yours is a full paragraph. I will not get into an editing war with you, as I prefer to wait for the other users to weigh in. Khalidmilan (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• TJD2, most users who supported adding an entry suggested a brief description. Your entry is a full paragraph. I have revised it and wrote a brief description instead. Let me know what you think, I can always change it back if you would like ( taking other users' opinion into account)Khalidmilan (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Khalid however much you wish to summarize this, it is not better reading flow to merge it into the preceding paragraph. That monster is large enough as is and could do with a soit itself. A time jump between discussing a 2011 controversy and a 2016 one is the perfect place for a paragraph break, which enhances legibility. Ranze (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I like this much better, and I agree with Ranze's latest edit. The flow was a bit disjointed how Khalidmilan originally wrote it. Nice work. I would like to point out only one person mentioned only having a single sentence, but that's alright. It's fine as is. Glad we could come to a compromise. TJD2 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Breaking DePaul's History Section into Subsections

Hello,

I think it would be beneficial to break up DePaul's history section into subsections. For instance, origins, early years, DePaul during WWII, controversies, 21st Century. I also propose removing the bullet-points found in the controversies sub-section as it breaks the flow of the page.

If no one objects, I will be making those changes within the next few days. Khalidmilan (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with this. It would make the article flow much better. I don't know if controversies belongs in the history section though; normally that gets its own header but I"d be okay with it either way. TJD2 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback! Khalidmilan (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that I don't think it makes much sense to place the controversies section in the middle of the history one. When reading a history section you expect to be reading through history as it happened, but currently it jumps from 1978 to 2005 at the start of the controversy section, and then from 2016 back to the 80s at the end of it. It also seems strange that although the university was founded in 1898, the earliest controversy is 2005. Surely earlier controversies exist?Peeky Chew (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Do controversies really belong in a university's Wiki page?

Browsing through the Wikipedia pages of many American universities, I seldom find any controversy sections. For instance, Mizzou, which had a huge racism controversy last fall that was covered extensively through domestic and international mainstream media, does not have a controversy section. The same applies to many universities that have had major controversies like Boston University, Northeastern University, Emory University, Stanford etc ..

I suggest either integrating the controversy section into the history section, or removing the controversies all together. Let me know your thoughts. If there were no objections, I will remove the controversy subsection and merge it into the history section. If consensus was found, I will remove controversial all together. Khalidmilan (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)