Talk:Palm Beach State College/Archive 1

Joseph Taylor
I added Joseph Taylor to the page, as he is a famous freemason, and alumnis

"Intolerant Institution"
Someone keeps adding the "Intolerant Institution" section to this page. This is obviously politically motivated baseless information, and I am contacting Wikipedia editors to have it blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnymatt (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section titled "Labeled an Intolerant Institution." The incident in question, while receiving some media attention, was a minor event that does not define the college in any way that merits attention in a general information article about the college, its history and offerings. The section appears to do nothing more than imply and highlight a political agenda. TheBigDog5 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The section titled "Labeled an Intolerant Institution." is being repeatedly censored. Incoming students have a right to know about the intolerance for diversity, inflicted by paid officials, at the school. No reasonable person would call what happened a "minor event". Colleges are supposed to be the very foundation of free speech and it is clear that is not what is going on at PBSC. The lack of an official apology is shocking and makes it clear nothing has changed. Students have a right to know what is going on at this school. So, stop your attempts at censorship NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcata1 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Intolerant Institution" section is not being removed as an act of censorship, it simply does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards. Please refer to the five pillars of Wikipedia, specifically the second "pillar", being that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Adding an entire section to the article about a disagreement between a school official and a school club gives undue weight to a single point of view, specifically that chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. To make matters worse the section references a non-existent facebook page for no discernible reason other than to possibly slander a school administrator (Olivia Morris-Ford, a Facebook fan of President Barack Obama and filmmaker Michael Moore), attempts to pass off unverifiable claims made by a Fox News anchor as fact (and there's evidence: an e-mail from student Christina Beattie to Olivia and Beattie's phone log showing the call from Olivia), attempts to pass off the apparent opinion of an editor as fact (Olivia Morris nor Palm Beach State College have offer any king of public apology for their ATTEMPTS TO SUPPRESS DIVERSITY), and completely makes up a story about censorship from the school in question (Palm Beach State College has repeatably tried to remove or minimize this information from wikipedia). Editors personal opinions do not belong on Wikipedia, please do not revert the section.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandtheftbible (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your analysis is flawed to such an extent that I must suspect you are an extreme partisan. This incident was not a "disagreement". It was an act of outrageous censorship and an attempt to stamp out diversity. The facebook pages adds context to Diaz's motivation. I suggest you read the Palm Beach Post story about the what went on that day. That is where the information about the facebook pages was published, it had nothing to do with fox news. Even if it did, your attempt to belittle fox news is asinine. Have you even look at the section you are trying to censor?? All of this information was there and is referenced. You acts of censorship are wrong and you are a bad person to keep doing what you are doing. Shame on you for trying to suppress this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcata1 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say the facebook page had anything to do with Fox News. I said that the section referenced a facebook page that does not exist. The Palm Beach Post even mentions that it no longer exists. The only reason the section mentions Morris-Fords facebook page at all is to paint her as a leftist. And even if she is, by making that seem like a bad thing the section is violating the neutrality rule. I brought up the Fox News piece because it is not a reliable source. Not because I think Fox News is unreliable, but because the only reference to the e-mail that supposedly proves that this incident was an act of censorship in the segment is a comment made by Greg Gutfeld. Note, Gutfeld did not read the e-mail during the segment, nor did he tell us where we can find the e-mail, he simply mentioned that it allegedly exists. It makes no difference whether it was on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, or the Disney Channel, it proves nothing. The section has a non-neutral tone which violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. The section assumes that Morris-Ford was censoring these students, despite the fact that she says she was following procedure, and that in and of itself favors a single point of view. The college says it was right, and Diaz/Beattie/YAF says they were right, and taking a stance favoring either of them violates the neutrality rule. The section also says that the college is suppressing this information. What proof do you have of this? I don't work for the college, and as far as you or I or anybody can see, neither do the other editors who have deleted the section. It has already been pointed out that this incident is a minor story that does not define the college itself, and does not belong in an encyclopedia article about the college. A perfunctory google search brings up several current news articles about the school, and none of them warrant entry into the Wikipedia article. I don't feel that this story is any different.Grandtheftbible (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
Why was this page protected? This is an edit war with a single editor adding controversial material. This is normally handled by blocking that editor, not locking down the article.--RadioFan (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The editing behavior at this article falls far short of Wikipedia standards. I have fully protected this article indefinitely to encourage you all to reach a consensus on the the disputed section discussed above. Please follow Wikipedia's dispute-resolution policy, and remember to keep your comments focused on content, not other editors. If you would like an edit to be made to the article, you may request one using editprotect, but it must be either a) uncontroversial (to fix typos, grammar, formatting) or b) supported by consensus. This article will be unprotected when this issue has been resolved through discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont doubt that there is a problem here but it seems to be with one editor. Why not deal with that editor?  Actually that editor had been blocked, and blocked again and then their editing privileges were restored for some reason.  Please read the comments above, there is concensus that this material does not belong, only the edit warring editor disagrees.  Please unprotect this page and block that editor (again).--RadioFan (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And unprotected: see my comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think either a block or protection is inappropriate; this has been going on at least since September of last year, with various accounts, and begat a block last November. It's repeated and long-term. Any help is appreciated. Incidentally, the first part of the oft-added edit is an apparent copyright violation from a Fox commentary , the second part is just soapboxing. 99.137.210.12 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)