Talk:St. Catherine University/Archive 1

Untitled
I had one of my student's come across this page and I called into question everything on in, due to the inclusion of the personal opinion. It's too bad too, because it looks like you may have done quite a bit of work on it. And I really didn't want my student to do the same thing.

By all means have fun and create pages on wikipedia, but leave the personal touches and opinions to the comments, discussion and news sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belindalibrarian (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty sparse article, which areas have problems? --Bobak (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Women's History Assessment Commentary
The article was rated "Start" class, for its reliance on primary sources and it's non-encyclopedic tone, as it is written more like an advertisement or personal essay. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges
''Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

Arson incident
I added information about a recent incident on campus. (I subsequently added the associated references...) Another contributor removed my contribution, with the edit summary "‎Arson incident of January 19, 2018: Removing per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. This is one student involved in one incident that just happened and has had no lasting impact on the school."

Complicated or controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page. The decision to only explain a complicated or controversial edit in a brief edit summary is by far the most common trigger for an edit war. Each time someone makes the decision to only offer a brief edit summary for a contentious edit they present the temptation to other contributors is to offer their rebuttal in their edit summary, when they revert the poorly explained edit. Instant edit-war.

I have made multiple attempts to explain to this particular contributor that they are not a newspaper editor, and it is a mistake to act as if their personal judgement on whether a topic was notable. I think it suggests a serious misunderstanding of our policies. We should not be using our personal conclusion as to whether topics are notable or not-notable. Instead we should be using the GNG and our special purpose notability guidelines.

So, is this incident of 2018-01-17 worth writing about? Between the 17th and the 19th all local reporters knew was that Police and Fire officials had responded to fires on campus. The fires could have been due to a mundane maintenance issue, or a soon-forgotten prank. But, on the 19th, when Prosecutors made the charging documents public, they made clear the suspect had confessed to trying to burn down the whole University, as retaliation for their perception the US military had been bombing civilian targets in Iraq and Syria.

Professional reporters thought that was notable enough to write about. That established the notability of the incident, as per GNG. That is what is required to include coverage of the incident.

The personal judgement of the contributor who deleted the coverage? Sorry, IMO, it is a counter-policy instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

So I restored the passage.

FWIW, the deleting contributor did not delete the four references I added -- leaving errors. The deleting administrator did not check to see if their edit left errors. Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When this turns out to have had some lasting importance to the university, that would be the time to add it, but not now. After a decade of editing Wikipedia, you don't seem to have grasped the obvious. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , you, I, even Jimbo Wales, have an obligation to the rest of the project that try to confine our comments to policy-based editorial issues, and not make comments about other contributors character, judgement, mental health, or sexuality. It would be damaging to the project if I were to respond in kind to the personal comments you keep making about my personal character, my judgement, your speculations on my mental health and sexuality.  So, as a courtesy to everyone else on the project, could you stop leaving insults that could tempt me to respond in kind?


 * Your initial explanation, in your first edit summary, claimed the authority of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. I think more specificity is required.  NOTNEWS is intended to address mundane, routine news coverage.  The campus newspaper might have a front page headline, "Campus to be locked over the Christmas holidays again".  It doesn't matter that that is the front page headline, when the campus is closed every Christmas.


 * Your call on the authority of WEIGHT also seems specious. WEIGHT is intended to prevent coverage of events like this from entirely taking over existing articles.  Campuses full of kids, some of whom are wild, or rebellious, get pranked.  Unauthorized graffiti, toilets clogged, in an earlier age, maybe panty raids ... and minor arson.  If this event was any of those it would not merit any coverage in this article.  But on January 19th the Ramsay County Prosecutor released documents that quoted a confession that an individual intended to burn the campus to the ground.


 * Can you provide an explanation as to why someone trying to burn down the campus is not important enough to merit a paragraph here? Geo Swan (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Geez, we don't even need NOTNEWS or WEIGHT to knock down what you added. We have simple BLP reasons for that - your statements put forth a living person of having committed criminal acts when she has not been convicted. But still, both of those should get things going for you. Your repeated invocation of "professional newspaper editors" means you miss one central concept of NOTNEWS - that Wikipedia, not being a newspaper, has different inclusion standards. Your trying to limit it to mundane news entries does not reflect what it says, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." In this case, we have coverage of a claimed crime that caused minimal damage. And WEIGHT very much if at issue here - is someone writing about St. Kate's a decade from now likely to make note of the fact that there was once some trashcan fires there? It seems unlikely that this event will have much import in the history of the school.
 * As for your call to discuss controversial edits on the talk page, that doesn't seem to be a rule that you follow for yourself. I've seen you take such discussions right to a user's talk page, so that it wasn't visible to anyone else interested in the article. And having seen that your addition here was controversial, you didn't wait to gain consensus before re-adding it. And when you find yourself noting that "I have made multiple attempts to explain to this particular contributor that they are not a newspaper editor", does it make it stop and ask yourself whether you are actually practicing the civility that you claim to? Do you think that this editor has some belief that he is a professional newspaper editor that you feel duty-bound to disabuse? (And if that truly is your belief, did you take any steps to ascertain whether perhaps he is a professional newspaper editor?) Or is that just some attempt to put that editor in your place and claim higher ground? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Arson incident
As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries.

In this edit excised over 10,000 bytes. Their edit summary? "Reverted to revision 822131779 by NatGertler (talk): Rm minor incident."

The practice of making complicated or controversial edits, explained only in a brief and inadequate edit summary is the most common trigger for edit warring. It presents an enormous temptation to the person whose contribution you excised to respond in kind, with their own edit summary, when they revert the poorly explained edit. Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Look above, at the other (now accurately named) section. Been there, done that, despite your pious and ridiculous posturing. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In the interest of accuracy, I'll point out User:Geo Swan is trying to add TWO minor incidents: the one he failed to gain traction for above and a separate incident he tried to shoehorn into Hoodie. --Calton | Talk 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's see... You added a large amount of material, including material you already knew to be of a controversial nature, without further talk page discussion, and with the only edit summaries claiming you were working on references? Kindly stop your fake courtesy policing; the pot calling the blueberry black is neither effective nor amusing-Nat Gertler (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Complying with the guidelines for discussions
WP:TPO says "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Another contributor changed section heading, without prior discussion. I think this edit is the kind the guideline recommends against, because there was no reason offered for it, and it unfairly distorts my point. So, I ask them to consider dropping the practice of arbitrarily modifying other contributor's comments. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It changed the discussion section titles to something relevant, identifiable, and accurate, from the pious, vague, and self-serving codswallop you served up. It was neither arbitrary nor did it modify any comments.


 * Now, if you have any NEW arguments actually related to content, perhaps you should actually make them now. --Calton | Talk 16:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Archived BLP noticeboard discussion
For the record, a discussion recently took place regarding this page on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, and it is now archived at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive269. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

explanation
I re-introduced a section on campus security. An earlier version was trimmed, when subsections were trimmed. I didn't think the objections to the subsections applied to the parent section. Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you tried to insert the same non-story about the security guard shooting himself but surrounding it with piffle about a security system, to the point of making the original story almost incomprehensible and definitely misleading. Bad idea. --Calton | Talk 17:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , the edit summary you used when you reverted my good faith addition implied bad faith. Your edit summary asserted "Reverted to revision 845968042 by CommonsDelinker (talk): Disguising this non-story so you can insert it again: bad idea".  Since my edit summary said "see talk", and I then left an explanation, on the talk page, your use of the word "disguising" is, at best, highly inaccurate.
 * If you don't think the University's association with LiveSafe is worth covering, is there a reason you can't calmly and politely explain why?
 * You have called the September 2017 shooting a "minor incident". Yet it received nation-wide coverage.  So I think a calm, polite explanation of your "minor incident" position is in order.
 * Sometimes newbies, in discussions like this, call upon WP:UNDUE. UNDUE is intended to prevent a subtopic overwhelming the article on its parent topic.  But the subsection I added is short -- so UNDUE doesn't apply.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Campus security" is generally not a matter that rises to the level of inclusion on articles of higher education, and a one-off incident that gets a little local coverage is not enough to overcome that. It is not the sort of thing that a major general article on St. Kate's is likely to make note of. Some guy accidentally shooting himself isn't exactly the Kent State Massacre. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First, the incident received nation-wide incident.
 * Second, I don't know where you are from. Chicago, murder capital of the USA, maybe?  None of the Universities I worked at had ever had even a single incident.
 * Decades ago there was a bomb scare, at the University where I was working. The entire campus was evacuated.  My campus, like just about every campus, had not been designed with security in mind.  I didn't get told there was an evacuation until about an hour and a half after it had been ordered.  So, modern universities use smartphones to advise people how and when to evacuate, or shelter in place?  Having experienced an evacuation let me assure you that, without regard to whether articles on other Universities include coverage of it, it is a subtopic they should include.  Decades ago I attended a conference, where one presentation proved unexpectedly important.  A historian gave a talk on how historians knew practically nothing about the lives of ordinary people, during the middle ages, because, for the small number of people who were literate, peasant's lives were literally "beneath notice".  However, he and his colleagues were able to acquire detailed knowledge of everyday life in  particular village, because, when the Vatican became concerned that village was the center of a heresy, they dispatched The Inquisition.  The Inquisitors interrogated suspects for days, and they wrote everything done.  Our modern world is full of things that hasty moderns, like you perhaps, consider "beneath notice", which nevertheless really deserve coverage.  Having experienced one evacuation I repeat that security measures, like this one, are a subtopic some might suggest is beneath notice, that nevertheless is worthy of coverage.
 * You wrote: "Some guy accidentally shooting himself isn't exactly the Kent State Massacre." No, it is not the "Kent State Massacre."  But who says it has to rise to that level of significance to merit coverage?  Anyhow, the incident is of wider significance, because,
 * the shooter lied, and made up a false account, where the shooter was a trespassing, pot-smoking, black youth, wearing a hoodie, and sporting an afro;
 * police felt they had to take his racist story at face value, even though those at the center of the response now say they never believed his first account;
 * The shooter's hoax triggered a massive police response;
 * human rights workers claimed the young black men stopped because Police took the racist hoax at face value had their lives put at risk;
 * those on campus, and their families, described the advisories that went out over the LiveSafe system as inadequate and uninformative;
 * ordinary citizens, who lived nearby, had police scanners, and when the false profile went out, they broke out whatever weapons they had for home defense -- which also put innocent bystanders at risk.
 * I am going to repeat my first point... The incident was covered in nationwide publications.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly made the claim of nationwide coverage. You have not shown it. Even had you shown it, that would not show that this incident had any notable ongoing impact on life at the university or the perception thereof. A person there once accidentally shot himself A person there once lied. Some people in the area around the campus have police scanners. None of this tell us anything significant about the university. It was not everyday life at this particular village. If there's some list article about race-related problems in American law enforcement out there, maybe this gets an entry there, but you've shown no reason why it rises to the level of import in covering the topic of this university. (And by the way, when you follow the statement "None of the Universities I worked at had ever had even a single incident" immediately with "Decades ago there was a bomb scare, at the University where I was working" you undercut yourself blatantly.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How many non-local references did you say you needed?
 * Bomb hoax != shooting incident Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that I needed any such coverage. In fact, quite in contrast, I had already noted how such coverage wouldn't matter. Your moving of the goalpost on the incidents in your history is both obvious and pointless. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "None of this tell us anything significant about the university." Wrong.  The material I added told our readers that the University had a security partnership, and that its system performed disappointingly the first time it was required.  The material I added told our readers that the University's neighbors, those who relied on the LiveSafe system, and human rights workers were unhappy with the University, over this incident.
 * It seems to me that the things you demand are what would be required if someone thought they could start a standalone article on this incident. I am not ready to start a standalone article.  I don't think this topic merits a standalone article.  If the police, or a vigilante had shot someone who matched the bogus description, then it would merit a standalone article.  But, while it doesn't merit coverage in a standalone article I don't think it merits zero coverage either.
 * What does GNG say? Doesn't GNG explicitly say that topics that aren't notable enough for a standalone article could nevertheless merit coverage in related articles.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, actually, the things that I "demand" are what should be expected for inclusion in this article, not for a stand-alone article, which would require more. The things that you claim are significant do not appear to be so; that there are some points of friction between a school and its community is to be assumed. Topics that do not merit stand-alone articles could indeed merit inclusion in an existing article; this topic does not merit inclusion in this particular article. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote "that there are some points of friction between a school and its community is to be assumed," as if it were obvious. Hmmm.  Does any wikidocument say that?  See my account of what historians learned from the Inquisition's centuries old torture transcripts.  I suggest that friction between a University and its staff and students, between a University and neighbors, should not be considered beneath notice.  RS talked about it.  Can we forgIet gut feelings and rely on the wikipedia's policies and guidelines here?
 * It is my position that the LiveSafe coverage would merit inclusion here, with or without the active shooter incident. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know you think it merits inclusion. So far, the only responses you've gotten are "no", and that is what you can assume from me from here on, so you can skip trying to respond. If you want policy, "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Yes, that is WP:UNDUE. If you wish to insult me as a "newbie" or as a "hasty modern" for knowing that policy, well, I cannot stop you. But a suggestion: in the future, holding up the Inquisition as a guide to how one should be act is not a way to make you seem like a reasonable person of lofty goals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me quote from UNDUE. The first paragraph addresses neutrality, and minority views.  I think this brief contribution was neutrally written, so I don't think that paragraph applies.  The second paragraph says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."  This contribution was quite brief, so it certainly wasn't overwhelming the rest of the article with a "depth of detail", or "quantity of text".  "Prominence of placement"?  I didn't place this material in the lede, or somewhere prominent, so I don't think that applies either.  So why, exactly, did you cite UNDUE?
 * WRT the offense you say you took at my use of the term "newbie" and "hasty modern" -- I took a look back at the relatively small number of discussions where we have both weighed in. I am sorry if you weren't aware of this, but your comment style is frequently aggressive, right out of the gate.  Some people object to that kind of commenting style.  Other people make allowances for comment styles like yours, when the contributor is otherwise in good standing, and their aggressiveness is balanced by a thick skin.  In this user essay, pick one, I offer advice to those whose own comments are aggressive, yet who have a thin skin.  If you think I really owe you an apology please see on apologies.
 * Your comment about the inquisition? I do my best to own up when I realize I made a mistake.  I don't try to win an argument, at all costs, even after realizing the other guy is right.  Your comment about the inquisition gives the appearance you chose to distort what I wrote, and imply I endorsed the Inquisition's use of torture.  I mentioned the Inquisition while explaining that our unexamined biases can prevent us from recognizing the notability of phenomenon ordinary people take for granted.  I strongly encourage you to also put the interests of the wikipedia first, and not try to win arguments at all costs.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to also put the interests of the wikipedia first, and not try to win arguments at all costs And I advise you to look up the term "psychological projection. Also, WP:AGF, a policy which you invariably invoke but have difficulty applying to ourself.
 * Personally, I would urge Nat Gertler to cease engaging with you now, since, having failed to persuade anyone of your attempts to shoehorn in this overblown nonsense, you're down to Wikilawyering and attempts at emotional manipulation. And from me, you can assume that my response is and will be "no" on this issue, and further argumentation from you will be ignored. --Calton | Talk 13:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

...your use of the word "disguising" is, at best, highly inaccurate.
 * No, it's completely accurate. Again, you tried -- once again -- to shoehorn minor incident regarding the same security guard shooting himself but surrounding it with piffle about a security system. Your explanation was vague and content-free explanation to the point of being actively misleading. So yes: "disguising" is completely accurate.

'' UNDUE is intended to prevent a subtopic overwhelming the article on its parent topic. But the subsection I added is short -- so UNDUE doesn't apply.''
 * That is self-serving nonsense on stilts. Bonus condescension points for the "newbie" reference. --Calton | Talk 13:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the Universities I worked at had ever had even a single incident.
 * Except, of course, the one you detail in your very next sentence. And I'm going to guess it wasn't the only one.

--Calton | Talk 13:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)