Tortdog

Anonymous entries will be deleted. So please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Quinn

No, obviously he lost millions. But the source said nothing about him holding out.►Chris Nelson 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It does NOT say he is holding out for more than a No. 22 pick would normally receive.►Chris Nelson 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you call "stalled"? Stop changing the article unless you can pony up something to contradict it. It was cited from the beginning. You err. --tortdog 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalled does not prove he's holding out for more money. Maybe that's the case, but don't write it unless you have a source for it. This is not complicated. By the way, "emphasized" isn't really the best word to use on your user page.►Chris Nelson 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Paul, you're obviously a BYU-lover. So am I. The thing is, I also love Wikipedia. So I like to keep it neutral. You should too. Don't delete unflattering information. Tort Dawg 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. But obviously our views of neutrality are not the same. You present a balance, and do not overemphasize that which is negative beyond it's real substance. For example, you keep trying to include two instances in the article regarding censure. There is no reason to mention it two times, especially when nine paragraphs are devoted to the issue. --tortdog 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very relevant that academic freedom is hampered at BYU since the school is controlled by the LDS Church and people who teach there are not allowed to contradict the Church in their teaching. That's a big deal for a university. Tort Dawg 21:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a point of view that it's a "big deal" for a university. The information on the censure itself takes up about eleven paragraphs of the article, far more than any other university. But you want it into the intro as well. Have you made any progress in getting other university articles to reflect your opinion yet? tortdog 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's major enough that it should be in the intro. Tort Dawg 23:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BYU

An anonymous user is currently inserting biased information into the BYU article, and inserting text on this page. I am more than willing to discuss, but do insist that we do so by disclosure of one's identity, and not hide behind anonymity.

The discussion page for BYU is also available for disagreements. I suggest that we use it. --tortdog 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul, you need to be NEUTRAL in your wikipedia edits. You delete unflattering information from the BYU article even though this information is true and relevant. This is not byu.edu. 69.88.74.82 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any biased information I present. Right now, I am deleting duplicate information which mentions BYU's censure by an organization. My edit makes BYU's article similar to that of other censured universities. Your edits heighten the rhetoric. You also keep trying to compare BYU to Harvard, which is absurd. You attempt to delete comparisons to universities that are considered equal. You don't explain.--tortdog 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my edits. The intro is supposed to have "duplicate" info discussed in greater detail later on in the article. The articles of other censured universities should have the same info in their intros. It is useful to compare BYU to Harvard for admissions to give people a point of reference. Numbers (admissions rate & average ACT score) don't lie. A soft "more selective" label from US News can be very misleading. It is very relevant that acadmemic freedom is hampered at BYU. Tort Dawg 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We disagree. The censure information is minor and dated. Other universities do NOT have this in their intros. It has been criticized and viewed as biased by other universities. I agree. Do not treat BYU any different, or feel free to go over the Catholic University of America and make similar edits. If those hold, then let's change BYU to conform. Until then, let's not.

It is not useful to compare BYU to Harvard. They aren't in the same ball park. Compare BYU to similar institutions. And the statistics are included (including information on why US News considers BYU's as "more selective").

And how about getting an original name, instead of copying mine? --tortdog 21:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your last comment regarding Quinn vs. Agent

I do think my edit was more directly what the source said, but you are probably right in the spirit of the source, that it is Quinn's opinion. I'm not sure about his agent's opinion being legally his but since your page says you are an attorney you probably know more about it than I do. Anyway I won't object if you change it back to say it was his opinion if you want. The source almost says it anyway. Phydend 14:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. I'm fine with your current edit. It is more accurate. Just wanted to make clear that I was not attempting to insert words into Quinn's mouth. --tortdog 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

University of Colorado at Boulder

I deleted the section initially because (1) calling the Ward Churchill saga an "academic freedom issue" struck me as rather POV, since this is definitely not how his crtiics construct events; and (2) as much press coverage as it has gotten, it has never struck me as an important general interest issue. The former has been remedied by changing the section heading, while the latter is, I admit, a totally subjective opinion. The section still seems to underrepresent his critics, in my opinion. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Other university pages address academic freedom as well. University of Colorado is certainly not alone. --tortdog 02:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic freedom vs. Religious freedom

The only source you cite for the academic freedom issue at CUA is an organization with a history of being anti-religious freedom. It is not a notable enough organization where it's view can stand alone as fact and have two sections in the CUA article devoted to it's opinion. Way too much is written on the issue in the article as it is now. It needs to be shortened and moved to the In the News section or removed all together. 75.34.31.66 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

BYU lead

There is a discussion going on at BYU's page about the lead. Since you took part in the last one, I thought you may want to have a part in this one. Let's work together to knock out a good, solid opening. Thanks, Wrad 03:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BYU academic freedom

I have created an Academic freedom at Brigham Young University article and linked it from the main BYU article. We may want rely on the link to explain the specifics, and confine the BYU article's coverage to a summary. I agree with you that this section is too long, and invite your help in shortening it. Especially now that the BYU article is reaching a size that violates wikipedia standards, we need to start making subarticles and summarizing things better. Wrad 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)