Talk:Indiana University Bloomington

Removal of negative information

Picard's Facepalm reverted my recent addition of this paragraph in a new "21st century" subsection of the "History" section:

In 2023, the university attracted national attention when the university barred a faculty member from teaching after alleging that he improperly assisted the Palestine Solidarity Committee, a student group, in reserving a space on campus. Shortly thereafter, the university's administrators also cancelled a planned art exhibition by Samia Halaby, a Palestinian-American artist. Both of these events occurred after the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel and in the wake of national attention on alleged antisemitism on college and university campuses. They also occurred in the midst of changes to Indiana laws that some perceive as attacking academic freedom. In the spring of 2024, the university's faculty voted no confidence in the Indiana University system president, the Bloomington campus's provost and executive vice president, and the Bloomington campus's vice provost for faculty and academic affairs.

In their edit summary, they wrote: "Undid revision 1219376640 by ElKevbo (talk) not the right place for such controversies. IU has seen hundreds of them over the years - none of which are mentioned in the article. You'll notice not even Bobby Knight's controversy and subsequent riots are mentioned."

This reversion and that edit summary are unacceptable on many levels. First, the rationale clearly violates WP:NPOV. If other noteworthy negative information is missing then the correct response is to add that information, not to remove other negative information. Second, the suppression of noteworthy negative information is a blatant violation of NPOV. Any editor who believes that this article should only consist of positive information about this subject needs to rethink why they're here. ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is only an issue of WP:NPOV. There's also the question of whether the events are significant and not just news. That it happened is not in question. The impact of it on the university is much less clear. That "some perceive it as attacking academic freedom" is a vague statement, and that the faculty voted no confidence in the administration is somewhat like a Republican state committee decrying a Democratic office holder. If this is truly notable, then the reasons behind the various actions need to be detailed and the ongoing impact of them (at least as much as can be known after six months) be stated. Indyguy (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the comments by Indyguy - I will extrapolate a bit more in my reasoning here. Firstly - you created the section of "21st Century" whilst not only skipping over all of the controversial instances at IU in the previous 23 years (of which more than a few made national, mainstream headlines), and skipped over any major or landmark changes, improvements, expansions or enhancements to the campus and it's academic programs - instead honing directly in on the "hot-button topic of the month", all revolving around the university leadership not embracing Palestinian support concerning the current conflict. You also omitted that the change to Indiana laws you mentioned were to afford protections against racism, along with the failed mentions of IU's leadership being accused of antisemitism along with the numerous instances of it which have also been reported in the media. That hardly seems NPOV on your part.

I might add that this is far from the first time that Palestine/Israel issues have taken hold at Indiana (or any other major institution around the globe) - and not just in the 21st century. It is also not at all the first time that Indiana (or other schools) have had votes of no-confidence in leadership. Hopefully your other recent edits - especially in academia - are not looking to add issues and incidents from one side surrounding the conflict to those articles, and continue to cite only a single source for all your refs that is well known to not be neutral.. That would certainly be perceived as biased WP:AGENDA. As per WP:SOAP, "Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete". The current state of affairs will indeed fall off the radar as it has so many times before and the incidents at universities will fall right along with it - taking a far less immediately predominant role (though still occurring). Between that and WP:NOTNEWS - such items may be best presented over at Wikinews instead of int he midst of articles about university campuses.

While I get the spirit of your comment regarding the addition of other [...] negative information to the article - if this or any other university page was to start accumulating a tally of negative events and controversies - they would quickly overwhelm the rest of the article. This would conflict with WP:UNDUE in level of detail, amount of text, and minority views. I also don't believe this to be at all in alignment with the goals of WP:WikiProject Higher education, which is the guide for these types of articles. The articles are intended to be more about the universities and campuses as a whole - and less so of a detailed list of what happens at them. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your insistence on preventing any negative information to be added to this article is completely unacceptable and ridiculously out of line with our foundational policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. Please reread that policy and reconsider why you're here and what you're doing in this project. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not at all what I said. That's a wild extrapolation and a gross misrepresentation of what I explained above - one which I will not entertain further. Please re-read what I said above - and do so for effect. Please do not read in between any lines - as I did not write anything there. You are also way out of line in questioning my presence and participation on WP. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm: The lack of other controversies in this article is not a reason to exclude this content. Editors can add content without having to update an entire article, and doing so does not mean there is bias behind an edit. Especially given that the editor in question has worked with WP:UNI for many years as solid and neutral editor. Although I tend to think the issue with the canceled exhibit falls under news, it relates to the vote of no confidence of major university officials, something that is certainly encyclopedic. As a result, I don't have an issue with the paragraph that was added by @ElKevbo. I support its restoration to the article. Those with knowledge of other controversies are welcome to add them, along with content to cover the gap in the history section. Rublamb (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

So noted - though somewhat unfortunately so, as I fear the university articles are going to become overwhelmed with mentions of incidents as a result. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is no different from the the millions of other articles in Wikipedia - WP:NPOV and WP:DUE still provide adequate guidance and in no means justify excluding all negative information from this (or any other) article. In fact, our advice on college and university articles explicitly asks us to include "notable controversies such as student protests or reforms" in the history section of articles like this one. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Indyguy: If I add the additional context that you've requested, can you assure me that you won't then accuse me of adding too much undue information? I kept the addition brief because that is all of the space that it warrants in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I recommend keeping these recent events very brief or it falls under Wikipedia:Recentism. Perhaps think about in 10 years from now what a reader will find relevant about these current events. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an excellent point, and a very important perspective to maintain. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Rublamb (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately kept my addition short - just a few sentences. I have no objections to others continuing to edit that material - or writing about these events completely differently. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I support the inclusion particularly in light of the related attacks on one of the two groups of student protesters yesterday. If this grows it may require it's own page and thus only a small summary here. 2607:F140:6000:813F:9948:F048:514F:AFDD (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm: It's pretty common in articles about US colleges and universities to split out a separate history article when the history section gets too long and cumbersome for the main article. The main article still needs a summary of the history, of course, but then the (appropriate level of) details can be left for the history article without continuing to make the main article longer. ElKevbo (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing you probably should have led with that track, rather than with what seems to appear as an WP:AGENDA in what you included to an article that was completely devoid of not only controversial topics - but any 21st Century history at all - let alone those which are just simply "recent news & hot button social outcry items of the month." You opened the door for "other noteworthy negative information that is missing" - despite my caution against it (and the obvious crossing of WP:UNDUE that it would result in - as I said above). You don't get to come back at me for following exactly what you said & qualified. I might also note that 5 of the items I have added so far are all actually shorter than the one which you did - so I guess that speaks to levels of detail. So - as I have an exhaustive list of noteworthy, negative items to add - shall we continue down the path, or would it be more prudent to split out the history (or controversies), or should we even go so far as to "put that thing back where it was or so help me" :) ? --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to what you've added, just noting that the history section as a whole is getting a bit long.

And you may want to review WP:POINT before you get much further along the road you've decided to travel down. ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I told you that the history section was going to get long once you started down that path - and that it would cross WP:UNDUE in level of detail, amount of text, and minority view!!! Literally what I warned against! There is absolutely no other outcome when you start adding content/information to an article that it will indeed get longer. You stated very clearly (and I do indeed quote) that, "If other noteworthy negative information is missing then the correct response is to add that information" and "preventing any negative information to be added to this article is completely unacceptable and ridiculously out of line with our foundational policy of maintaining a neutral point of view." So I have done exactly as you stated should be done - and that is the only point I am making. Ironically - it is actually your point. Or does that count only when it aligns with what you determine should be recorded as negative information within the article? I dare say my additions have proven to be far more neutral than yours. FYRP: WP:NPOV. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 22:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)