Talk:California Baptist University

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• CBU Annie E Gabriel Library.jpg
• CBU Engineering Building.jpg
• CBU James Complex.jpg
• CBU Yeager Center Entrance.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved Javier case to new section

I have moved the Javier incident and lawsuit to a new section, "Controversy". I really don't think it belongs in a section on the history of changes and progression of the school through the years. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

First, it's the "History" section, not the "History of events that paint the university in a positive light" section. This is a historical event that should be placed into larger context for readers, not segregated in a unique section as if it's completely disconnected from all other events and context. Second, it's only one paragraph and that simply doesn't warrant a separate section.

Finally, this isn't something that you should be edit warring over. You boldly edited the article and we appreciate that. But when another editor reverts your edit, immediately reverting them yourself to impose your own preferred edit is not acceptable - that's the beginning of an edit war. Your contributions are welcome but this is now your article on which you are free to impose your preferred edits over the objections and questions of other editors. Please self-revert to restore the status quo until and unless there is a clear consensus for your preferred version of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: I'll start off by saying that I think your assumptions about my motivation are not just incorrect but really shouldn't be voiced by you. They're unnecessary and not relevant to the question at hand. Let's just discuss amicably and leave the bad faith accusations out, okay?

If you think highlighting the incident and lawsuit in a section titled "Controversy" is trying to keep readers from seeing it, I guess I don't understand your logic. From my objective and unbiased viewpoint, I think a section about the controversy actually will draw readers to it rather than keeping the incident tucked into and almost hidden in a chronological section on the school's history.

That's my rationale. Can you state yours without launching more personal attacks against me? My hope is you will. Thank you, A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you addressing the multiple substantive issues that I've already raised. Here is an essay already written about this issue if you'd prefer to read something written by someone else. ElKevbo (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: It seems to me this subsection [1] of the article you linked above addresses the question at hand. Reason why: I would assume the incident and subsequent lawsuit attracted at least some, if not a lot of (maybe considerable) media attention?

@ElKevbo:, please take a look at the newly expanded "Controversy" section of the article. I don't think there's now any doubt the incident and subsequent trial are not being whitewashed or hidden from view in this article. Indeed, the incident is now "placed into larger context for readers" and is definitely "not segregated in a unique section as if it's completely disconnected from all other events and context". Thank you for your input. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I am still not at all convinced that this information merits its own section. Most of the material you added, especially the lengthy quotes, needs to be removed as it's not the kind of material we include in encyclopedia articles.

What you would want to provide to convince me (and probably most other editors) that this information is of lasting importance is evidence that the incident had a lasting and significant impact on the institution, not just that it made a splash in the media at that one moment in time. Did it result in changes to policy or practice? Is it still discussed or debated several years after the fact? ElKevbo (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. If you'd like to pare the section down, feel free to copyedit it, of course. The incident was significant as it was determined to be a discrimination case and the law was violated. It made news around the country and the story went into the Huffington Post (among several other publications). Whether or not the school changed policy, I'm not sure that should be a deciding factor about anything. I doubt they changed their policy at all regarding transgender and homosexual students. The incident and lawsuit happened, the situation was controversial from both sides of the coin. Wikipedia policy per the link I provided above appears to clearly support a separate "Controversy" section for this article, based on the school being a business and an institution. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @ElKevbo that the incident does not appear to justify a separate section. It does not have lasting coverage, nor did it result in lasting changes to the school. Per the policy, it should not be split into a separate section. glman (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This looks like the sort of content that would be better given concisely in the history section. As it stands, it looks like undue weight is being given to a single event. A bit of a challenge is that the history section is very brief, mainly consisting of a series of factoids, so even stated concisely this is going to be a large part of that section. It might, therefore, be worth having this a sub-section of the appropriate sub-section by date within the history section (still cut down to a more concise wording). If either kept as a section or moved to a sub-section, it should have a more neutral title, possibly "Expulsion of Domaine Javier" (obviously, this doesn't apply if it's simply integrated into the history section's text). Robminchin (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Robminchin: I think your ideas sound like a good solution to the dispute. A sub within the section, cut down word count, and more neutral title. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)