Talk:Syracuse University/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Free Speech Issue

Twice now I have added the very pertinent fact that SU was listed #2 in "FIRE’s 12 Worst Colleges for Free Speech in 2012" and it has twice been removed. The source material is of the highest caliber and can be found at the following URL: http://thefire.org/worst-schools . This is perhaps one of the most important and relevant issues for anyone who is interested in the University and particularly for those undergraduates and graduates who wish to apply for admission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.23.132 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(As you are editing without a user name, it's a bit hard to follow your edits. At the moment, I don't see you having been reverted twice.)

The one revert I see does not have an edit summary, so I can only guess why it was reverted. From my POV, I would want two things from material like this: 1) an independent source and 2) an accurate summary of what that source says. Lacking #1, I haven't evaluated #2. I'd be looking for an independent source because it means the ranking is of some weight. There are literally thousands of organizations ranking schools on tens of thousands of criteria, from bar exam pass rates to hottest undergrads and everything in between. An editor could easily junk up any article with thousands of these rankings creating a worthless mess. Yes, FIRE reports on FIRE's rankings because FIRE feels that FIRE's rankings are meaningful. Rankings that are respected by third parties are the gold standard in my book.

Perhaps the reverting editor could clue us in on their reasoning for reverting? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I was the editor that removed the most recent edit (i say most recent because I have no knowledge of the other alleged edit). Your explanation of possible reason was close to my own. Unlike the other editor I do not think that one website is "source material of the highest caliber." I also had a sneaking suspicion of linkspam. With all of 360 links to thefire.org it seems that thefire is not the most widely regarded ranking organization: https://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Athefire.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-aurora DouglasCalvert (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Many websites, a portion of them creditable, reported this story when the list first came out: http://www.google.com/search?q=The+12+Worst+Colleges+For+Free+Speech+In+2012+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_enUS463 . Moreover, the journal is the only watchdog of free speech issues in academia that I know of. They have no political affiliation and were founded by two accredited university professors: http://thefire.org/about/mission/ . They publish several different digital and hard copy periodicals on free speech at universities which are well received.

Recently this fact was added "Syracuse was ranked 5th in The Princeton Review's 2014 list of top party schools.[78]" Footnote 78 only has a link to the Huffington Post story. If I add the Huffington Post story on the free speech issue will it give my citation more credibility?

I am sorry but I do not follow when DouglasCalvert writes: "With all of 360 links to thefire.org it seems that thefire is not the most widely regarded ranking organization: https://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Athefire.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-aurora." I don't know what this proves. Further explanation would help me understand why the edit was deleted.

Now there is also the issue of placement. I put the fact in the beginning of the article because I think this is one of the most important issues surrounding the university. To function properly as a hub of information and critical thought, university faculty and students need to be assured that their speech is protected. The only influential organization that reports on these issued does not think that this is currently the case. If Wikipedia wants readers to be informed on the most important issues surrounding the school, they should predominantly display this fact.

Lastly, how can we be insured that this important fact is not deleted by an overzealous devotee of the university who only wants to see the positive aspects of the school displayed here?

I am busy at the moment but wanted to respond:

• That there are only 360 links to thefire.org was presented as evidence that thefire is not very well known. Compare Princeton Review with TheFire.
• I did not see the party school ranking before. In my opinion this should probably go as well.
• I think it is a stretch to list this as one of the most important issues for the wikipedia article on SU.
• I almost fell out of my chair when I read "only watchdog of free speech on campus." I would like to introduce you to the ACLU, http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/student-speech

In the future please sign your talk posts with four tildes. DouglasCalvert (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The ACLU is not entirely devoted to free speech in academia like FIRE is. Free speech in schools at the ACLU is only a part of what is a much larger organization with many other concerns. I could also add to my edit, "The ACLU has nothing to say on this issue."

(Personal information redacted, per WP:OUTING.)

I think that the fact deserves to be reinstated. I will add additional citations that lead to stories that reported the FIRE list as well as a brief explanation of why SU was included on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.23.132 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not editors. In particular, do not discuss another editor's personal information.

As I previously stated, I believe we need an independent reliable source for this. By way of comparison, consider an actor. If s/he wins an Oscar or Golden Raspberry, that will be covered in independent reliable sources and should be in the article. If s/he wins Jake's Movie Blog's "Greatest actor from Cleveland ever" award, no one cares. Arguments that Jake's Movie Blog is a unique source on actors from Cleveland don't change that. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned, the story was reported by many independent sources when it first came out. http://www.google.com/search?q=The+12+Worst+Colleges+For+Free+Speech+In+2012+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_enUS463 . This includes the Huffington Post, The Daily Caller, Fox News and Metro.us. Also, while the Chronicle of Higher Education did not report on this list specifically, they have shown that they value FIRE statements and investigations. In this article, the Chronicle reporter give the ACLU and FIRE equal weight on this free speech issue: http://chronicle.com/article/Free-Speech-Advocates/124579/ . Also see this article that shows how the Chronicle uses FIRE reporting: http://thefire.org/article/13439.html . Staff member from FIRE write for the Chronicle on free speech issues: http://thefire.org/article/13062.html .

SummerPhD and the mysterious DouglasCalvert, I think that you are both using an Argumentum ad populum, the logical fallacy which assumes because something is popular or reported in popular publication, it is true or reliable. FIRE, like many academic publications, is not as widely read as other sources but they meet standards that many in the field respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.23.132 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly not arguing that anything is true because it is widely believed. In a case where I have been against including something, that makes no sense. Rather, I am saying that something that is not widely reported is trivial. Going back to our actor, suppose she used adult diapers after giving birth. This would be true/factual even if absolutely no one reported it. (Or, as in Argumentum ad populum, it may or may not be true regardless of how many people believe it.) However, if it is not the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, it would be trivial for our purposes. We do not include everything. We wouldn't want to, as articles would become useless jumbles mixing basic facts with trivial garbage. Rather, we summarize what independent reliable sources report about a subject.

We can certainly find sources that mention that this, that or the other song/book/movie/comic book/play/painting/sculpture/knock knock joke/etc. mentions or deals with Gerald Ford. If, however, we start including all of them in Gerald Ford, the article would be a huge, useless mess. However, skits about Gerald Ford on Saturday Night Live had a meaningful impact on his presidency. As a result, the SNL skits should be (and are) discussed in the article. Similarly, widely used rankings of schools are typically included in their articles.

I haven't yet reviewed the sources you're listing now. I'll see what I think and give my opinion this evening. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

SummerPhD, I agree with much of what you said and I respect that you are considering the issue. I would just like to quickly say that free speech at universities is not trivial but it is a very important issue for higher education in America. The FIRE list speaks to the integrity of this institution. It is more important than "hottest coeds", and an actor's bowel movements, etc. There has to be some hierarchy of things to be included here and I think that this should be around the top of that hierarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.23.132 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Why am I mysterious? It seems you are trying to impugn my reputation but I am not sure to what end. I have no problem admitting I am a SU alumnus (but I do appreciate summerphd's effort to protect privacy and I must say the WP:OUTING faux pas committed by the anon editor was quite tacky). I am not sure why an alum would not want their alma mater to strive to be a better place? I have nothing to gain personally or professionally from edits to a wikipedia article.

Anon editor please sign your comments with four tildes. If this is such an important issue for you it seems it would be in your best interest to follow the community's guideline/rules.

I also think the Fire article would be better if the article contained links to non-fire sources. I spent some time reading all of the fire's coverage of this issue and it seems that all the content/information is hosted on Fire servers.DouglasCalvert (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Anon: This is not a question of which is more "important": hot coeds, free speech, etc. Rather, this is a question of weight. Material that receives no coverage in independent reliable sources is assumed to be trivial. Maybe it "should" be reported, maybe not. We aren't here to judge that because we are not here to give better exposure to issues that we feel are important or defend the truth. We are here to build an encyclopedia, summarizing what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. With this in mind, I am generally struck by anonymous editors who arrive with one issue they are pursuing. In this case, you are trying to add that one university (of 12) showed up on a list this year.

I'm not sure why this one issue at Syracuse alone is of interest to you. From FIRE's website we can find substantial coverage of pretty much every school I can think of vis-a-vis free speech. Some good, some bad, many a mixture of both. Why this list and why Syracuse?

Of the links you've provided, only the Huffington link actually mentions Syracuse. (ACLU vs. FIRE? I don't care, we're talking about whether or not being on this list from FIRE is a significant fact about Syracuse.)

At the end of the day (which is fast approaching here), I'm not convinced it's a significant point, but I'm not firmly committed either way. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sources presented so far do not seem to meet the necessary bar for including this material in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My name is Nico Perrino. I work for FIRE. I wanted to address some of the concerns editors of the page have with referencing FIRE and our work. To begin, FIRE is a non-partisan, non-profit organization started nearly 15 years ago by a left-leaning lawyer and a right-leaning professor to defend free speech, due process, and academic freedom on college campuses. Since our founding we have been well respected by those within the higher education industry and those within the media as a principled and fair advocate for the aforementioned rights. Independent sources have often turned to us for comment on free speech in higher education issues, including the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/sunday-review/the-challenge-of-choosing-a-commencement-speaker.html?_r=0 The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578115440209134854.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop The Lost Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-harassment-20130605,0,5681072.story, and many others, including frequent citations in the two main trade publications, Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education. FIRE is the only organization in the country to sort through America's top universities' policies and rate them according to how well they meet First Amendment standards: http://thefire.org/spotlight/. Our specialized First Amendment attorneys maintain the database. Our rating database is reported on by respected publications: http://chronicle.com/article/Free-Speech-Group-Says-Most/42125/ and many schools consult FIRE and our rating database when drafting their policies:http://thefire.org/article/15400.html. When FIRE determines which schools are the worst in the country for free speech, we consult our database to see if a school's policies violate First Amendment standards and we look back at how many reported incidents of free speech violations occurred at the school recently and the severity of such violations. Syracuse University has had many cases that FIRE has taken up in recent years, with three in the past three years, perhaps more than any other school in the country: http://thefire.org/spotlight/schools/1143. We have created videos summarizing these violations that can be found on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvIqJIL2kOMeiylT73AzVv-sjVB2H5e85. Earlier in this thread, an editor said we are the only organization fighting for free speech on campus. As another editor correctly pointed out, the ACLU often fights against free speech violations in the higher education context, too. That being said, we are the only organization devoted SOLELY to fighting for free speech in higher education, and are the go-source for many for commentary on the topic. We also work with the ACLU quite extensively on many of our cases, especially those involving litigation: http://thefire.org/article/11236.html. Because we are the only organization seeking to do comprehensive research on university policies and free speech violations, we are often the only source for such information. I mention this again because an editor did not like that FIRE cites our own research. In the same way an investigative reporter cannot cite another's research because they did the original reporting themselves, FIRE cannot cite another person or group's research in many cases because we do the original reporting ourselves so the information does not exist elsewhere. I am happy to answer any further questions as you all try to work out this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoPerrino (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO, this has nothing to do with the issue. Whether or not FIRE is often/rarely cited by other sources about other issues is moot. Whether or not FIRE is the greatest thing since sliced bread/a blight on society is moot. If a random 7 year old in Idaho said Syracuse University smells like pig farts, we would include it if and only if independent reliable sources discussed this information. If the United Nations issued a joint resolution (countersigned by the leaders of every world religion) stating that Syracuse University is a swell place, we would include it if and only if independent reliable sources discussed this information. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

SummerPhD, I am obviously not completely informed on the rules/goals of Wikipedia but your logic seems circular. How is this issue to be widely reported by "independent reliable sources" if one of the most commonly used reference websites in the world, Wikipedia, fails to mention it? Also, I think my edit history is irrelevant. I have edited before from different IPs and I choose to remain anonymous and that is acceptable here.

The specific issue has been reported by "independent reliable sources". A google search for "syracuse university free speech" returns the following results, many of which mention the FIRE list: http://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=af776853afb991db&q=syracuse+university+free+speech. This included the local new agencies Syracuse.com and 9WSYR.com. The list, as well as some of the individual cases of free speech infractions, were reported in the independent campus newspaper of Syracuse University: http://dailyorange.com/2012/04/su-ranks-among-worst-universities-for-free-speech-for-second-consecutive-year/. The Daily Orange has wide circulation at the school and the list and the individual cases of free speech infractions were widely discussed on campus.

We could continue to discuss the citation issue ad infinitum but I think we should try to move forward to create an acceptable edit, with or without the FIRE list. I think some reference to the free speech issue should appear in the article's opening paragraph. Perhaps this issue also merits its own subsection in which we can work together to create something that meets everyone's standards. I will work on this but I an open to all suggestions and willing to make concessions.67.253.23.132 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did forget to mention that local Syracuse media took our concerns seriously. They did not dismiss FIRE as an unreliable source. Thanks for pointing that out. It's an important point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoPerrino (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, local news reports lots of stuff. For instance, the local newspapers reported on my dad's retirement and, a couple of years later, they reported that he was named "Senior of the Year" for his volunteer work. None of that is or should be included anywhere on Wikipedia.

If, on the other had, the New York Times reported on either of those things, they might be worth including somewhere, if other reliable sources included the same info.

"How is this issue to be widely reported by "independent reliable sources" if one of the most commonly used reference websites in the world, Wikipedia, fails to mention it?" For starters, there is a flaw in this question. If you are here to ensure that something be widely reported, you are not here for the right reasons. Wikipedia is not a site to right wrongs or promote the truth. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia: summarizing what independent reliable sources have reported on a subject. If such sources have not widely reported on an issue, it does not belong on Wikipedia. (BTW: As Wikipedia is user edited, it does not pass our requirements and cannot be used as a source for itself. It should not be used as a source for anything. If you find a journal or newspaper that cites Wikipedia, you need to find a new journal/newspaper.)

Yes, FIRE reported on its own list. No kidding. Jake's Movie Blog probably promoted its "Greatest actor from Cleveland ever". Heck, Cleveland media might even have mentioned it. We still aren't close to meaningful coverage. Syracuse has been around for quite some time. To demonstrate that this list (being promoted here by two conflicted editors) is a significant part of its history, we'll need a lot more coverage that local news and the org that created the list.

Incidentally, inviting conflicted people from outside of Wikipedia to comment on an issue is a great way to generate a conflicted response that is not informed by our policies. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in working together to see that the free speech issues is addressed in the article at all? I noticed in your link that one of the signs of "Not being here to build an encyclopedia" is "Little or no interest in working collaboratively".67.253.23.132 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not agreeing with you ≠ "Little or no interest in working collaboratively". If there is not meaningful coverage of this in independent reliable sources, this is trivial. If there is meaningful coverage of this in independent reliable sources, please cite it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered editor, please propose some text that you believe should be added to the article. Please include reliable sources and ensure the text is of appropriate length and tone that reflects the importance of this incident as shown by the sources (in other words, don't write two paragraphs if the best sources you can muster are local media; a topic only discussed in local media probably only warrants a sentence or two at the most in an article covering this expansive a topic). And ensure that your text reflects only what is in those sources and is presented in a neutral point of view; we are here to summarize reliable sources, not to use Wikipedia to promote our own causes or advocate for our own concerns. ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose the following edit in the first paragraph:

"Syracuse has been numbered among the top 12 worst schools for free speech. [Citing:

http://thefire.org/worst-schools

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/the-12-worst-schools-for-_b_1382159.html#slide=816137

http://dailyorange.com/2012/04/su-ranks-among-worst-universities-for-free-speech-for-second-consecutive-year/

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/List-names-SU-as-one-of-the-worst-colleges-for/kVedJr5RnUichWzQpS2M7A.cspx]"

If the issue requires further explanation I propose a subsection in addition to the sentence in the opening paragraph

"Free Speech Issue

In 2011 and 2012 the independent student free speech watchdog FIRE listed Syracuse as a major violator of students' free speech rights. The first amendment infractions involve "Disciplinary Investigations of Satirical Law School Blog", Syracuse University's Department of Public Safety threatening to censor Halloween costumes and a student expelled over facebook comments. [citing: http://thefire.org/spotlight/schools/1143]

Syracuse Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric F. Spina responded to the 2011 charges writing 'Syracuse University Places a High Value on Free Speech' [Citing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-f-spina/syracuse-university-place_b_815561.html]."

Any suggestions?67.253.23.132 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to implement these edits by next week and will do so unless I hear any suggestions for improvement.24.103.185.26 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Recent material compiled by one organization doesn't belong in the lead of this or any other article unless it has received significant coverage in many high-profile outlets.

This also doesn't belong in its own section. How about integrating it into the history section? ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think in the first paragraph of the "Student Life" section might be more appropriate?67.253.23.132 (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth one of the things I am starting to be troubled by is the insistence/desire to have this mentioned so prominently, be it a mention in the lede section or the most recent "compromise" of including the material in "the first paragraph" of the student life section (this suggested placement is so mind boggling to me.). This is starting to feel as if this is a PR campaign more concerned with optics than encyclopedic content.

Furthermore, "I would like to implement these edits by next week and will do so unless I hear any suggestions" is not the way to reach a consensus on wikipedia. I am not sure that there are many situations where inaction is evidence of an accepted offer. This ultimatum is also another example of why I am suspicious of the motivation/reasoning behind with this edit. It seems equal parts bullying and temper tantrum.

For other wikipedians who are not familiar with SU's schedule the fall term begins August 26 or 27th. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the self imposed deadline for inclusion of the material is also the first week of classes. Please add this to the list of reasons why I believe the proposed edit is part of a PR campaign and not a well intentioned addition of encyclopedic content.

I renew my objection to the inclusion of this material.DouglasCalvert (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care when it goes up. There was no ultimatum I just thought the discussion was over because of the lack of responses.

This isn't about PR. It is just an important report about the University. To assume that this is slander is to assume that FIRE, the Huff Po, Syracuse.com and the other reporting institutions have some bias against SU. Do you think that this is the case? If we can prove that then I would also veto the inclusion of this material. Whether it is good or bad PR would depend on your opinions on the importance of free speech at universities.

Any suggestion about placement are welcome. It seems logical that it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph of the article or have its own subsection according to what I have learned about Wikipedia policy. History seemed a bit odd to me because it is a relatively recent issue. SU doesn't have a long history of free speech infractions from what I can tell. Any suggestions? 67.253.23.132 (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's where we stand: An addition to the article, originally to the lede (God alone knows why) was made by a single purpose account anonymous editor. When I opposed that, the SPA recruited someone from FIRE to support the inclusion of their report. DouglasCalvert and I have repeatedly explained that the material does not seem to belong in the article, based on Wikipedia's guidelines. ElKevbo seems to believe it does.

We are not to the point of deciding where and how to include the material. We are still seeking consensus as to whether to include it at all.

FIRE reported on the contents of their own report. They are categorically not an independent reliable source for this. They are not an independent on their own report (much as Syracuse is not independent on this report as it is about them). Local media are local media. A blog republishing a list does not make one item in the list significant, otherwise every list published in Huffington Post would generate additions to 10 or more articles. (The SPA, notably, is still only interested in adding this one entry from this years list to this one article.)

IMO, the SPA is a conflicted editor and the item is trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not a SPA, though I have not edited in a long time. There are several entries in this article that do not meet the citation standards that you are imposing on this edit (shall I list them?). While this does not justify the inclusion of this edit, it makes me suspicious about why this edit was deleted.

Shall we leave out the FIRE list all together and make some addition to the article based on each free speech violation?67.253.23.132 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are here because you feel very strongly about this particular issue in a way that is strictly limited to Syracuse University. You are here because you want "this issue to be widely reported". We are here to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong opinion on the basic issue of including or omitting this material. It seems borderline so my primary concern is that if it's included it's given proper weight and placement which in this case would probably mean a brief mention in an existing section. ElKevbo (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"SU doesn't have a long history of free speech infractions from what I can tell."

This is another nagging problem (albeit much smaller). Should the SU article include any and every event that has ever transpired on campus?DouglasCalvert (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the issue apart from the article. I feel that this is something that should be included in an encyclopedia article about the school because I think its relevant. I also feel that the source is credible and that the issues have been reported by independent reliable sources. If I have any strong feelings it has to do with what seems to me like censorship of an important report that might make the university look unappealing (though it is not my object to slander the university). It is not our job to include only the information that the school's administration would want included. By "widely reported" I meant this is something about the university that people should know, like the school colors etc. It is at the heart of what a university does and it affects how the students and faculty operate on a daily basis.

While there isn't a long history of free speech infractions this seem to be a policy that the University is operating under currently and they don't seem to be taking steps towards fixing it.

I am willing see the free speech issue dropped entirely if it can be proven to be not creditable. I think that some editors here think I am trying to slander the university and are more concerned with that than the validity of the edit.

If this is at all relevant, my other edits have been about popcorn bags, coco butter and I also edited this article on the same issue when the FIRE list first came out. If you are concerned with understanding why I choose to make certain edits this conversation will get much longer and off topic. I am concerned with the proliferation of information.67.253.23.132 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome straw man: "It is not our job to include only the information that the school's administration would want included." Nobody ever proposed anything like this. The fact that you introduced this strikingly handsome strawman into the discussion is yet another reason why your edits appear to be made in the furtherance of a goal that is NOT related to creating an encyclopedia. You are not doing yourself (or your agenda) any favors by including a strawman like this.

Have you read WP:SOAPBOX and WP:IS? I would recommend taking a look in order to get a better understanding of some norms around WP. Speaking of norms your edit about me is the second bullet listed at WP:WIAPA. You never even acknowledged your transgression, this is not a good way to establish credibility and trust in a community. DouglasCalvert (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Its difficult to call my comment a straw man when I pointed out, and you acknowledged, that the "party schools" edit was invalid, yet it remains in the article (and their are plenty of reasons why the admin. would like that ranking). You are imposing a standard on my citation that other citations in the article do not meet. For example, much of the citation for this article relies on Syracuse University's own webpages. These are not third party or independent. Although the Huffington Post's article does not mention Syracuse it shows that they respect the list and while the local news agencies are not perfect third party sources they carry some weight. Why is this issue alone getting this type of scrutiny? Moreover my defense of the edit is taken as proof that I am a fanatic and the post is more illegitimate.

The FIRE list is a press release from a WP:SCHOLARSHIP source that would add balance to the article.50.75.172.223 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If there are other problems with this or other articles, feel free to address them. They have no relevance to this issue.

You are singularly interested in the "the Truth" on this one issue. This is clearly a source of bias.

A FIRE press release about FIRE's findings is not a WP:SCHOLARSHIP source. It is a primary source. Their press release documents their findings. Another reliable source not connected to FIRE or Syracuse discussing Syracuse's appearance on the list would be a secondary source. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the party ranking. I thought it had already been removed.

It is not difficult to call your statement a strawman, and I will do it again. Please explain where anyone said that "our job to include only the information that the school's administration would want included."

I used the revision history search and I have found the two instances that you added this ranking. I am getting bored with this so someone else can look for who reverted it.

First edit: From a computer in Maxwell (Full disclosure I have a grad degree from Maxwell): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=prev&oldid=492253748

Most recent edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=prev&oldid=567485834

After looking at the two edits I must say that I prefer the first edit when you constrained the ranking with the applicable year. In the most recent edit you failed to mention that the list was the rankings for 2012. A casual reader might be lead to believe that the list had been updated or was applicable for the most recent school year. I had not noticed that the ranking was more than a year old. Please add the staleness of the ranking to my list of reasons for it to not be included. DouglasCalvert (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to try to stick to discussion of the sources. Reading over the article on primary sources it seems like Wikipedia articles can use primary, secondary and tertiary sources. In the links provided I don't see anything wrong with using local newspapers (or their websites) in an article on a university unless their is some conflict of interest.67.253.23.132 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You see to not hear what we keep saying. "...unless their (sic) is some conflict of interest"? Seriously? You have a very clear conflict of interest. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. You feel very strongly want "this issue to be widely reported". You are here to disseminate "the Truth" about Syracuse. You are here for that one reason alone.

Syracuse was included on this one annual list. Independent reliable sources have not discussed Syracuse being included on this one annual list. You are completely unconcerned with the other schools that have been included on the list over the years. Instead, you are singularly obsessed with one school being included on one list one year.

The consensus here is clearly not to include this. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to follow up and see if there's some pattern of coverage in reliable third party sources about this issue, and what I've come across is just re-reporting of the FIRE study. To me, these stories report about the rankings rather than underlying issues and so I have difficulty seeing what can be added to the article beyond "Organization X claims Y is Z", which is not historically or contextually illustrative. While I'm very much sympathetic to critiques that college and university articles tend to suffer from an abundance of promotional material, it does not follow that this is corrected by introducing single-issue criticisms like this. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I deny each claim made by SummerPhD and I have addressed each one sufficiently in previous posts. The editor clearly has some strong feelings of his/her own about this issue.

Madcoverboy, I have no desire to correct the issue of overly promotional articles although I do agree with you. I think that this is a relevant report about the university that meets the standards for inclusion. I agree that this edit is basically "Organization X claims Y is Z" but isn't that how Wikipedia articles are written? Also organization X is credible and respected. I have also suggested we include a more complete discussion of why FIRE included the school in its list.24.103.185.26 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rankings are thin gruel meant for easy consumption and trivially easy to game by over or underweighting some factors over others. For those reasons, I'd just as soon see them removed from all articles, but this is neither the time nor place to have that discussion. Instead, I would like to hear proponents of introducing content related to free speech issues at SU unpack these ratings, since the publication of a ranking does not strike me as notable enough to warrant inclusion. What are the factors that contributed to this low rating? Are there episodes in SU's history or administration polices that contribute to this? Where are the news stories, scholarly articles, interviews, etc. where these disputes are playing out? If you think there's a story here, you need to marshall sources to answer these to show there's a pattern of historical, cultural, administrative behavior that warrants encyclopedic coverage, not simply the publication of a ranking a few years back by an organization. If this information is hard to come by in reliable sources, then it strikes me that there's no story here and it shouldn't be included in the article. In any case, I don't see any reason for the ranking to go in: either there's other reliable sources writing about free speech issues at SU, in which case we can discuss including those, or SU's position on free speech issues are simply an artifact of one organization's ranking methodology. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to put something like this together. If I am able to do this in a way that meets the standards set by Wikipedia, would the other interested editors allow the contribution? I welcome any additional comments or suggestions from the other interested editors.50.75.172.223 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to comment on hypothetical material and I'm wary that a positive response may be misused or misquoted. But please feel free to draft something and I'm sure that other editors will provide ample feedback. ElKevbo (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll give it a go. According to a message I got I think an editor is trying to block me from the conversation but I will see if I can do it before that happens.67.253.23.132 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A conflict of interest notice is not an attempt to "block (you) from the conversation". It is a notice that there are things you can do to avoid problems you may experience in editing an article on a subject that you are very close to. Rather than taking this as a strategic move in a battle, I would encourage you to read the notice and consider the advice it gives. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you (all of you?) registered an account so we could address you directly instead of speaking from at least 3 different IP addresses. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw something like "BLOCKED" in the message but I think I was just looking at the HTML code or something. It will take sometime to prepare the edit but I will comment again ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.172.223 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The COI notice adds your talk page to the category User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. Hidden text within the note reminds admins: "THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI". If you were editing under a registered user name or one IP address, you'd be able to see that more easily. We should probably place the same note on all of the IPs you are using. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)