User talk:Rowana77

Chapman University
Thanks, Blackberry Law -- However, and I submit this point for discussion, I don't believe the FERPA information deserves such a high placement on the page. It's certainly not the most important piece of information about Chapman other than the history. Maybe it should go at the bottom? Consider this: If every special-interest group that had a particular beef with any college or university got to post the results of every complaint or judgment against the institutions, no university would go without such commentary. If Chapman is to be branded with a FERPA complaint on its Wikipedia page, then doesn't every other university which has received a FERPA complaint need to have that information called out, too? The point is that it's very easy to file such complaints about an institution, and there are literally hundreds of such complaints filed every year -- many of them resulting in an admonishment of some sort, because to be seen as useful, the feds have to hand out admonitory judgments (mostly making administrators take make-up classes about FERPA). Posting such information high up on an institution's page would be like posting every complaint or lawsuit ever filed and won against, say, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or the U.S. Army, or the Red Cross, or Harvard University. I recall an instance where a dancer fell off the stage and sued a major ballet company for damages -- and won. Does that information deserve second place on the Wikipedia page of that ballet company, if the dancer, her friends or whoever placed it there? Is the information factual? Well, sure. Is it cogent to what people need to know about the history and mission of the institution? With the number of complaints and lawsuits filed in our litigious society -- maybe not so much. It's really a whole new way of letting special-interest groups or disgruntled individuals attack institutions -- to post on its Wikipedia page every complaint or judgment against it, as high up on the page as they can get away with. Here is a truth -- EVERY institution, no matter how revered, has people who are mad at it, judgments that are filed against it, decisions that don't go its way. One could clutter till the cows come home the Wikipedia pages of companies, colleges, charities, arts organizations, etc. with factual information about the suits, decisions and complaints against them. To maintain the growing authority of Wikipedia, I'd submit that these sorts of postings, factual though they may be, are not usually of such vital importance in the history of an institution that they need to be high up on the page. A footnote, perhaps, except in the rare instance when a judgment completely changes the history and goals of the institution. Anyway -- just my 2 cents' worth! Rowana77 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rowana, you need to stop deleting paragraphs from articles without indicating why you're doing it. You may have valid reasons and, if so, they deserve discussion. When you delete in this way several times in a single day, your actions look particularly suspect. At this point, it looks like you're an employee of Chapman University. So, I'm going to have to revert your edit to the Chapman page - I agree that there is some question as to whether the FERPA stuff belongs on the page at all, but what you deleted was cited to a reliable source and had also been previously altered several times by various editors in an effort to make it as fair as possible. In closing, communicate. Because what you're doing right now is one step away from anonymous vandalism. Welcome to Wikipedia. BlackberryLaw 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rowana, thanks for posting to the Chapman article's discussion page when you made your most recent edits. I made additional comments there that you may want to read.  As a self-proclaimed "member of the Chapman communications department staff," I think we can both agree that you aren't looking at this article from an unbiased point of view, and impartiality is something we strive for here on Wikipedia.  There is no question that the information on in the Chapman article is true.  Note that the article doesn't say that there WAS a FERPA violation, only that a student has filed an official complaint and that the matter is pending; there is even a citation to the OC Weekly article that discusses the matter.  There IS a question as to whether FERPA information of this type belongs on any university's page, but the truth is that you are in no position to decide that for the rest of us.


 * As a result, I have reverted your edits back to the version that contains a FERPA statement that is the product of deliberation and collaboration by a number of fair-minded editors. Please let the process work, and don't just keep deleting stuff that Chapman doesn't like.  If you (or others) persist, I shall be forced to get the page protected.  BlackberryLaw 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rowana - I called the Director's office of the Family Policy Compliance Office today. I found that Chapman has previously been violated so this is not a matter of a complaint being filed, but an actual violation. Let the facts speak for themselves, please and stop making excuses. You may also like to know that these violations are very rare so it is even more important that this information be posted on this page.