Talk:Wittenberg University

AAUP Sanction Information
I do not believe the AAUP censure information is appropriate for this article and should either be removed or better cited. The information does not contain any neutral sources (see WP:BESTSOURCES). The AAUP sanction information makes up more than half of the Academics section of this article and relies exclusively on a single source directly from the organization issuing the "sanction". No reputable third party sources, unbiased sources, or sources containing information on the university's official response to the claims are cited.

Beyond improving the citations, this section is still not likely a good fit for the article. Of the 57 institutions with official, non-COVID-19 related censures from the AAUP, I was not able to locate any mention of AAUP related sanctions or censures in the Wikipedia articles for these institutions. Of the seven institutions which were the target of an AAUP investigation for institutional policies arising from the COVID-19 crisis, only two of them, Canisius College and Wittenberg University, have mentions of such information in the institutions' respective Wikipedia article. These two lists are not exhaustive and are not inclusive of all institutions sanctioned or censured by AAUP. AAUP sanctions and censures appear to be so common that such an action should not be notable or relevant enough to appear in this article nor is the event notable enough in the institution's history to require such a sizable chunk of article dedicated to it.

The continuous reversion of this information, which is neither well-cited nor well established among any university page on Wikipedia, seems to particularly target Wittenberg University for reasons that are not particularly clear. If the weight of the evidence shows that the information provided is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, I believe that given the number of institutions targeted by AAUP sanctions and the large number of targeted institutions which do not have active or recognized AAUP union chapters, the information might be better suited for its own Wikipedia article or as an addition to the American Association of University Professors article.

WhySoMan (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree and I worry that you are misunderstanding or misapplying Wikipedia policies. In particular, sources are not required to be neutral; that only applies to what we ourselves write in articles.
 * I do agree with you that we are very inconsistent in how we include this kind of information in articles. In this instance, however, the solution is to add the information to those other articles and not to delete it from this one.
 * If it's any consolation, I am amenable to the information in this article being edited or shortened. I am simply not amenable to completely deleting it as it is pertinent and well-sourced. ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I believe you are the one misunderstanding Wikipedia policies. While a neutral point of view is required for writing articles, Wikipedia's policy on citations states that we should rely on "...reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when possible. While a non-neutral source may fit, we still have other concerns. Simply having a citation does not meet the requirement for being well-cited.


 * Please see the following sections of Wikipedia's article on point of view. In WP:IMPARTIAL, it is stated that "the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." AAUP is directly involved in a dispute with the university and more than half of the disputed paragraph in this article is direct quote from the AAUP itself. In WP:BALANCE, we find that we should be "...describing the opposing views clearly", which this article also fails to do. I would also ponder whether this article meets the requirements for balance as mentioned in WP:BALASP, which states that "...a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. " The amount of space dedicated to sanctions and censures in this article -- between the APA and AAUP censures -- is probably not appropriate, especially given that it is uncommon for Wikipedia articles for colleges and universities to contain such information where it exists.


 * Based upon the foregoing, I do not believe this information is pertinent or well-sourced. WhySoMan (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I will accept User:ElKevbo's most recent edit as more appropriate, unless there are other objections, and leave it at that. WhySoMan (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have genuinely thought about our lack of a systematic process to include AAUP information in articles; I think it would be very helpful and appropriate to explicitly note if institutions have been censured, I just haven't figured out how we can do this in a way that is sustainable. ElKevbo (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I would also advocate for a similar change on the Canisius College page and will create a discussion there. I agree about including censure information in some way. I am not generally opposed to including censure and sanction information within articles, even this one, but I think it requires more discussion. Beyond the fact that we do not systemically include AAUP censure information on most university pages as of yet, one of the major concerns on my part regarding AAUP-related censures is that in addition to being a think tank type organization, the AAUP also serves as a labor union through its various arms and affiliates, which is mentioned in the collective bargaining section of the American Association of University Professors article. This can be especially concerning when a private institution such as Wittenberg or Canisius does not recognize the authority of the AAUP. An AAUP censure or sanction can often be the result of a conflict/dispute that does not necessarily exist when including censure/sanction information from other organizations such as that of the American Philosophical Association that also appears in this article (which I have never disputed or requested changes to) or probationary status information from accreditation organizations such as Higher Learning Commission and TRACS. WhySoMan (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

.