Talk:Baylor University sexual assault scandal

Single sourced 1 paragraph page

This doesn't seem to fit the Wikipedia definition of a full article. Suggest merging it with Baylor Bears Football page or expanding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.57.184 (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not a full article, hence the stub tag. I am working on much more content and am currently assembling what is a very eventful timeline of the events. As it is a timeline, I do not want to post until I have finished because, being incomplete, it would be misleading. This is a notable subject with extensive and ongoing news coverage and qualifies for its own article. −Wordbuilder (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.57.184 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/baylorbears/2016/10/20/baylor-sexual-assault-scandal-timeline-football-convictions-title-ix-investigation. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletions

IP User 129.62.125.9 has twice deleted (1, 2) the Timeline section from the article. On the second deletion, the user said, in part, that the section was "stolen from reddit threads," and linked to this. I ran an Earwig's Copyvio Detector to compare the article to the specified post on Reddit. Its results indicated that copying was unlikely (2.0% confidence) with only 2 overlapping phrases for a total of about 7 words, so the accusation is clearly unfounded. As both the section and the Reddit post cover the same material, the basic facts should match if both are accurate, but there is no infringement and the section, which has over 80 citations, should remain in the article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have suggested that Baylor Sexual Assault Scandals be merged into this article. Its prose will be a nice addition, since the information here is primarily in bullet format in the Timeline section. Unless someone objects, I will merge that article into this one and place a redirect there. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have merged the article into this one. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What is and is not part of the scandal

The Baylor University sexual assault scandal broke out into the media as alleged coverup and disregard to athlete actions, specifically members of football team at the university, by those within the athletic department. More specifically, the scandal broke in regards to Sam Ukwuachu and his alleged behaviors at Boise State and Baylor University.[1] As more information came out, it was alleged that administrators across various groups within the University covered up or otherwise hid or ignored things that football players on the team, both past (2011) and present (2015), had done. The university commissioned an internal investigation by a third party law firm. The findings, while somewhat vague identified the athletic department as culpable. Their head coach was fired, the athletic director resigned and the president stepped down. Is there a disagreement on the basis of the scandal?

Jacob Anderson - this individual was not part of the scandal. He was arrested, his fraternity suspended and he was suspended and expelled from the university and not allowed to graduate from Baylor.[2]. Baylor did not try to hide or otherwise cover up his behavior - which is the entire basis of the scandal, cover up and inaction; all references to him need to be removed from the article. Does anyone have a question or dispute the actions or what is written about Anderson?

If there are not any disagreements in regards to Jacob Anderson, he will be removed from the article.

Bigbrainbigfeet (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Baylor sexual assault scandal timeline: From football convictions to Title IX investigation"
  "Mar. 6, 2016: A Baylor fraternity president Jacob Anderson was arrested in connection with a sexual assault. The fraternity, Beta Theta Pi, was suspended from all organizational activities until an investigation of the incident was completed." Dallas News, Oct 28, 2016
• "Timeline: Baylor sexual assault controversy"
  "March 2, 2016: A former president of Phi Delta Theta fraternity at Baylor, Jacob Anderson, was arrested on a sexual assault charge for allegedly forcing himself on a woman outside of a fraternity party at a house in the 2600 block of South Third Street on Feb. 21, 2016." Waco Tribune, Jan 1, 2017
• "The alleged assault by Anderson happened around the same time that Baylor was engulfed in a sexual-assault scandal surrounding its football team in 2016. It resulted in the firing of then-football coach Art Briles and the demotion of the university’s president, Ken Starr. Athletic Director Ian McCaw was disciplined by the school and resigned." LA Times, DEC. 11, 2018
• "Ex-frat leader's plea deal is the latest in a series of Baylor sex assault scandals"
  "A controversial deal allowing a former Baylor University fraternity president accused of rape to avoid jail time is the latest in the sexual assault scandals that have dogged the Waco, Texas, school in recent years."CNN, December 12, 2018
• Yet Livingstone doesn't believe there's a point at which Baylor can completely leave behind its past. That past is damning: Multiple women accused the university of paying little heed to their reports of sexual assault and of letting football players, in particular, off the hook when they were accused of rape." The Chronicle of Higher Education, FEBRUARY 04, 2019
• "Crawford says she talked to dozens of women who reported being raped at Baylor. Women at Baylor reported being raped by athletes, by fraternity members, by journalism students and engineers. But one thing stood out to Crawford when she investigated the cases involving football players." Deadspin, 2/05/19 12:42PM

Multiple WP:RSs comingle athletic with non-athletic/non-football references. That was the stable format of this article until you expunged much of that content and rewrote the lede to be football-specific.[3] The article and lede should reflect the content found in RS citations, not reflect your personal view of the topic. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am in agreement with UW Dawgs. Bigbrainbigfeet is endeavoring to scrub the article of incidents involving non-football players. Yet, the same editor added these two cited passages to the article, which only bolsters the claim that, while the spotlight shone brightest upon the football players, the misdeeds and alleged misdeeds were not limited to them:

Plaintiff attorney Jim Dunnam stated the University implemented a ″concerted strategy to get the public to believe this is entirely and only a football-related problem" [4]

In a 2018 story run by KWTX, it was revealed that in a 2014 Compliance report, ″the football team may have only played a very minor role in any documented sexual assaults on Baylor students″ and that ″a closer review of that report reveals years of failures by University officials to fully adopt federal laws and guidelines governing student safety″. [5]

Additionally, this article originally resided at Baylor University football scandal until Espoo moved it to its current location with this notation: "not a football scandal, not even 'just' a football program sexual assault scandal: 'institutional failures at every level' according to indepe..."

Several of the items the editor claims are irrelevant or opinions are indeed germane. This scandal did not occur in a bubble, so how others reacted to it is relevant. And, at least two paragraphs removed by the editor as "unrelated to the topic at hand" were directly related to sexual assault allegations against football players.

→Wordbuilder (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The article contains *many* statements and inclusions that Wordbuilder feels are relevant. I dispute the relevancy of many of additions in the time line. So, we therefore are two adults with different viewpoints. If paragraphs that were directly related to sexual assault allegations against football players were removed, it was done either through error or to remove duplicative information. Bigbrainbigfeet (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"Multiple WP:RSs comingle athletic with non-athletic/non-football references. That was the stable format of this article until you expunged much of that content and rewrote the lede to be football-specific.[1] The article and lede should reflect the content found in RS citations, not reflect your personal view of the topic -UW Dawgs.

The article has been under constant revision - it is essentially a living document and it did not start with non-athletic/non-football references. Who approved the change to include non-athletes? Who said those changes were accurate? Bigbrainbigfeet (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Let us see if we can even agree on a basic premise. How do we define 'scandal' in relation to that university? The scandal broke as related to *football* and up to 90% of this articles content relates to football players, coaches or people related to the football program. For sake of argument, let us remove "athlete" or "non-athlete" from the conversation. I argue that the scandal is the lack of oversight and lack of response from the university towards allegations involving sexual and physical assaults that occurred at that university. Victims were allegedly either stonewalled or had their claims dismissed and not investigated. *That* is the scandal. Is there a disagreement on this premise? Bigbrainbigfeet (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Refer to our policy of Wikipedia:No original research, including Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. UW Dawgs (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As indicated even by the two aforementioned passages added by you, Bigbrainbigfeet, the scandal has always been about more than just the football team. You feel items should be removed from the article and I agreed with you about some which were related but only tangentially so. For the others, list them here along with your argument as to why each should be excluded. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I argue that the scandal was the lack of oversight and lack of response from the university towards allegations involving sexual and physical assaults that occurred at that university. Victims were allegedly either stonewalled or had their claims dismissed and not investigated. I feel that description accurately describes the scandal and defines what the scandal was. Is there a disagreement on this premise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbrainbigfeet (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to our policy of Wikipedia:No original research, including "Wikipedia does not publish original thought." UW Dawgs (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Bigbrainbigfeet, those are part of the scandal and the sources bear that out, but they are not the entirety of the scandal (sources bear that out as well). Rather than asking broad questions, why not just list what you feel should not be part of the article and why? Then we can discuss specific points. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)