Talk:Campus controversies

Revision as of 19:11, March 16, 2006 by 06mea (talk | contribs)

This is the discussion page for "Campus controversies". This page is where editors and readers discuss what content should and should not be in the article, and respond to others' questions and comments. Unlike articles' content pages, editors should only add material and respond to others' postings, and never make deletions. This page is intended to record the history of any debate, as well as work towards resolving it.

All commenters here should take credit for their words. When you make a change, suffix your posting with --~~~~ This will automatically record your username and the time of posting. Doing this helps seperate comments, and is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.

Initial Debate Over Page

I hestitate to get involved in this controversy, but I think this sort of muckraking and these snide insults (nigaleian?) have absolutely no place on the wso wiki. --heather casteel

Also, the notion that Laleian and Ali are "most famous" for this incident is dishonest and inaccurate.

A user has removed these lines from the current version of the Aida Laleian and Laylah Ali pages.--05jl 18:11, 14 March 2006 (EST)
It's a Wiki, so you should feel free to edit the article to make it more polite, accurate, complete and useful. I do *not* think that the article should be removed. Perhaps the board could way in. With regard to specific points:
  1. Nigaleian is not an "insult". Many scandals have names. Nigaleian is the most common one in use (by me and others) for this scandal. If you have a better name, suggest it.
  2. If Laleian is not most famous at Williams for her involvment than what is she most famous for? Again, feel free to edit this description, but deleting the entire article seems out of bounds.
  3. It is my understanding that Willipedia is a place to capture the history of Williams, including controversial events. Or are we to have just happy, smiling faces? -- Dave Kane

I have read the Willipedia guidelines and I think that the content of this article is definitely close to crossing the line about pages about professors. Also, the title of the scandal was not generated by anything except by David Kane, and while he can refer to it as such on Ephblog or in other forums, I am not sure that it is appropriate for a Willipedia page. I am not advocating that we all have "happy smiling faces," I just think that there is enough information, in the Record or other places, in the public domain about this incident so that if someone wants information about it they can find it, and there does not need to be a page with insulting comments on Willipedia. -- Lucy C-C

The page discussed above has now been largely rewritten. All those who posted above are encouraged to comment again on the current version of the article. Even better -- edit it to improve it.--05jl 23:57, 14 March 2006 (EST)

  1. Although I did come up with "Nigaleian," several other writers at EphBlog use the term as well.
  2. The page needs to have a title. What do you want it to be?
  3. I am happy to have the page written in whatever style you like. Edit away. Make it as polite and neutral as possible. But I object strongly to the claim that this simple description of the actual history of what happened at Williams does not belong on Willipedia. If Willipedia really wants to be "the definitive source of information about Williams," then it should describe this history. At least, the board should not encourage people to write such articles unless it intends to allow them.
  4. I'll refrain from adding more material to the article until the board decides.

--Dkane 23:54, 14 March 2006 (EST)

Edits by Willipedia Board

Members of the Willipedia board are discussing this page and will make some decisions about how to proceed with it.

Nevertheless, do not refrain from working on this page yourself; do not wait for the board to "handle" it. Make the changes you want to see. We prefer to be advised by you, the conscientious editing community, rather than advise you.

In the meantime, let us remind you to PLEASE sign your edits by appending them with --~~~~ and not just your name. Using the tildas gives username AND date and time, which is very useful for reconstructing discussion.--05jl 18:11, 14 March 2006 (EST)

I removed a phrase stating that Laleian made the comment "to studio art professor Laylah Ali '90", since according to my understanding (from the Record articles etc.) Laleian did not necessarily make the comment to Ali in particular. Now the summary does not mention Ali at all, but I'm not convinced that's necessary. I will also add something to the ADRSI page explaining Ali's role, since right now it only makes a passing reference to her which doesn't make sense without a bit of context. --Brent 09:05, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Removal of large quote, from Record

I have removed the following for now. I am not wedded to this decision, but am placing it here for the time being, while any wiser than I seek a way to place it appropriately in the (revised) article.

Present at the meeting was Assistant Professor of Art Laylah Ali '90. Ali is African-American. Professor of Art Ed Epping claimed that

“All of the faculty who witnessed what happened at the meeting were stunned,” said Ed Epping, professor of art. “The force of the statement directed at Professor Ali was such that there was no way for Professor Ali to remain in the room.” Epping is on sabbatical in New York this semester, but was in attendance at the department meeting last spring.

When asked if he had been troubled by any public misconceptions of the incident, Epping said, “What I believe is not being discussed as fully as is the vehemence with which this phrase was spoken and the directness of its intent.” It may read otherwise on paper, he said, but “the word ‘nigger’ was not used in that situation as a metaphor.”

--05jl 19:11, 14 March 2006 (EST)

I moved "Nigaleian" to Campus controversies

We're not going to get in the habit of coming up with cutesy names for scandals. Let's keep scandal research on this one page unless something is so large and consuming that it clearly needs to be broken away into a separate article. --Evan 23:18, 15 March 2006 (EST)

OK, so it looks like we'll have separate articles for this stuff. For future "controversy" articles, try to use a title that is immediately recognizable, and not an acronym/neologism that recently emerged from someone's posterior. Also, the content of the articles should include the stuff that's actually INTERESTING. Why was there a controversy? What was the extent of the controversy? What was the response of the administration? The exact contents of emails, for example, are relatively unimportant. So are the identities of the involved parties, unless they are "famous" for some other reason, and it is enlightening to connect the dots. --Evan 01:52, 16 March 2006 (EST)


It's pretty ironic that the content of this page includes the debate over the content of this page. Makes the whole thing seem kind of silly. --06mea 18:11, 16 March 2006 (EST)