User talk:Bayboy1

reference to racism at Queen's University
I am wondering why you keep deleting my edits about the Henry Report, the report examining systemic racism at Queens that has garnered a great deal of local and national attention. Even internal Queen's publications have been thoroughly covering the issue.

Wiki is a public encyclopedia intended to accurately review all aspects of a topic - not just the topics that are "nice". It is NOT intended as a fan club or promo ad. I think you should justify your deletion from the perspective of Wiki's mandate or I will keep editing your deletions of my additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayboy1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I only reverted it once. If you checked the history, you will find your edit was last reverted by user:Gobbos, not me. The reason why I reverted it is because the material you added was out of place, interfered with article cohesiveness, did not properly cite sources, and was not even correct. Henry does not criticize, she only compiled, summarized and assessed the data gathered by a survey (not even hers) which has questionable significance due to a very limited sample/focus group size. In essence, the survey participants and focus group participants were the ones who were critical based on their responses. Dr. Henry was merely the interpreter of the data and responses. The Henry report may have gotten media attention, but that does not justify it being included in this article. A better place would be in a separate article, but I suspect such an article would be disallowed since it would not adhere to notability guidelines. BC 19:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not noticing that it was deleted by someone else as well. I will take your suggestions about referencing and cohesiveness into consideration in my next edit. I do, however, think my information regarding Dr. Henry being critical is more than accurate if you read the report in its entirety. And, while you might personally question the method of the report, the Vice Principal of Queen's and other senior administrators have acknowledged its validity in many public documents. Hopefully, the Vice-Principal Academic of one of Canada's leading research institutions is capable of judging research validity. Also, regarding "notability", I think this report is more than "worthy of note" - it is certainly as worthy of note as the history of Boo Hoo the Bear. The issues concerning what Henry called the "culture of whiteness" at Queens have received persistent attention for many years: in Kingston municipal politics, in the academic press,  in the Queen's press, in the national media, and in public debate and discussion. I believe this will easily meet Wiki's notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayboy1 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the report and it certainly has merit even if there was limited participation. Obviously Queen's and other institutions have work to do. I'm not saying that the report isn't notable in the context of university culture; it most certainly is. I'm just saying that as far as WP is concerned, the issue may not be notable. Perhaps the information will stand scrutiny if there is some rewording and citing. You would also have to make sure that the context is clear and that it cohesively fits with the article. BTW, I think Boo Hoo the Bear, whom I dearly love, is definitely not notable. Cheers. BC 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)