Talk:Wilberforce University

Split proposed of history section

4meter4 has done an excellent job expanding the "History" section of this article. It's now too long and detailed for this article. Rather than deleting material, it would be easy and helpful for readers if we just moved most of the information into a new article focused solely on the history of the university (likely History of Wilberforce University. A suitable summary would also need to be written for this article, of course.

@4meter4: What do you think? ElKevbo (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I'd prefer to wait to split it though until I'm done writing the history. That way we can decide how to trim. As for the lede... the decision to trim it that much was not appropriate per MOS:LEDE. The lede should summarize the article and for university pages they typically are multiple paragraphs and are rather lengthy. See for example Harvard University. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Please revert your edit to the lede. It's highly inappropriate of you to have begun an edit war to add multiple paragraphs to what is supposed to be a succinct summary of the most critical information in the article. We appreciate you contributing to the article but that doesn't give you license to unilaterally determine its contents. ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

ElKevbo I'm not sure who "we" is. Are you a representative of Wilberforce University acting for others? Do you have a WP:COI with the content in this article? As to the lede, MOS:LEDE and WP:MOS give clear guidelines about the depth of summary required. Key points in the article must be included in the lede section per MOS. Insufficient summaries, like the perfunctory one you created, do not meet the standards in the guidelines at MOS. Leaving it in the state you did would then require tagging of the article by the placing of Template:Lead too short. FYI, I am active at WP:Featured Article Review so I am very aware of what we expect from lede summaries. Additionally, I was hoping to take this WP:DYK and it would never pass a WP:DYKCRIT review with a insufficient summary like the one you created.

Additionally, you began the edit war by removing the lede without discussing it on the talk page per guidelines over foreseeably controversial edits. Making WP:OWN arguments in this case is hypocritical. Look in the mirror. I suggest you follow the guidelines at WP:CONSENSUS and work towards resolving conflict with the guidelines laid out there. To be clear I oppose shortening the lede in this case because at the moment it does summarize key points in the article's content in compliance with MOS. If we choose to separate out content into another article then the lede should of course be altered at that point to reflect that change. I suggest taking a deep breath, choose to be WP:CIVIL going forward, and take some time to cool down while I finish writing a history of the university and fact checking to published sources. Once we have a complete history we can take a look at applying Wikipedia:Content forks, and figuring out the best way to cover WU in the main article with the history section split out. Please be patient and recognize we both want what is best for the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

"We" refers to the community of editors in Wikipedia.

That you have dramatically expanded one section of the article, an expansion that is so detailed that it cannot remain in the article in its present state, does not warrant also dramatically and temporarily expanding the lede. Minutiae of the university's history don't merit inclusion in the lede.

Finally, I strongly recommend that you review our policy about edit-warring and our practice of "bold, revert, discuss." Editors are encouraged to boldy make edits but editors are also permitted to revert another editor's edits. What should come after that, however, is not the original editor adding their preferred material back to the article but an open discussion. You have not only begun a edit war but you're now edit warring with multiple editors. This is not your article and you do not dictate its contents. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 Please engage in the conversation here rather than engaging in edit warring. It's very difficult to arrive at a positive result using WP:CONSENSUS if editors aren't going to take a look at the WP:MOS guidelines and work collaboratively to implement them. Dialogue is necessary. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@ElKevbo In future, I suggest not referring to your own point of view as representing a "we". You don't speak for the wikipedia community of which I am also a member. I'm not a novice editor needing WP:BRD quoted back at me. I am perfectly aware of the cycle, and have been trying to engage with you here in good faith using the WP:CONSENSUS process. I pointed out to you the relevant community backed policies at WP:MOS/WP:MOSLEDE. I've yet to see you justify your decision to unilaterally chop the lede to even smaller than before I edited it. The lede you are proposing does not summarize the key points in the article. It doesn't match the MOS criteria. This is not helpul when trying to get this article ready for WP:GA/ WP:DYK review. From experience, articles with perfunctory lede sections will not pass review and will fail unless they properly summarize the article in sufficient detail (but not too detailed). I am open to suggestions on cuts/structural changes, but the article does need to summarize key points in the institutional history. I'm going to leave a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and see if we can get some outside independent input on the lede section in order to make it ready for the pending DYK nom. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Policies and widespread community practices and norms are certainly relied on by multiple editors so "we" is entirely appropriate in many circumstances. Telling other editors how to edit Talk pages is not collegial or productive.

The only proposal I have made to the lede is to not massively bloat it with historical details. A paragraph summarizing this information, maybe two, may be appropriate. It is not acceptable to dedicate nearly the entire lede to summarizing only one portion of the article when the remainder of the article is not represented in the lede. The lede is intended to summarize the entirety of the article, not just the parts you personally contributed or find most interesting. ElKevbo (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything but a bunch of more personal attacks and willful mischaracterizations of both the text that was written and my motivations for writing it. You are perfectly free to suggest ways to trim the text and/or add text to bring more balance but lashing out in this way is entirely WP:UNCIVIL and counter to WP:CONSENSUS. What would be productive would be to identify what key points you feel belong in the lede and which ones don't and why. Please try and keep your comments civil, and address specific content in the article rather than attack other editors. If you can't do that, we may need to take this WP:THIRD, and failing that WP:ANI. 4meter4 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

4meter4, you may consider my views very similar to ElKevbo in the second paragraph of their 23:08 comment above. I suggest you read it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

As I stated, I am happy to trim the lede section, but not to the point of what was originally done. We need some guidance as to what to cut. Identifying the key points particular editors want to keep and which ones want to remove would be helpful in determining how to move forward productively. That actually requires addressing specific text. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Our advice for college and university articles has a lot of good guidance. ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've trimmed some. Part of the issue is trying to present complex issues like Central State University and Payne Theological Seminary which both began as Wilberforce departments, but are now completely independent. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@ElKevbo I've attempted to bring more balance by crafting a short opening paragraph about the current state of the university. I'm finding it difficult to trim further because the details are somewhat necessary in explaining CSU and PTS. I first stumbled on this article because I was trying to figure out why Wilberforce students in some references were being claimed by CSU and vice-versa, sometimes erroneously and sometimes not. If you have any suggestions for specific changes/improvements please let me know. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The lede has really gotten out of control and needs to be reduced by roughly 75%. The excessive detail about the Civil War should be removed and repositioned in history section (if it isn't already there now). Then, another point for starters: "As of 2024 the school has a 29% four-year graduation rate" is unnecessary for the lede unless one wants to say that the school is particularly weak on this front (the rate is conspicuously low). There are many other sentences to be removed. My question to @ElKevbo is, how do you want to work through this? Proposals in talk first, or should I go ahead and start trimming the lede? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a 75% cut is an unobtainable/unrealistic goal. A reasonable goal would be to trim to 400 words which was a recommended prose count made by a commenter at the DYK thread based on MOS. I also think the Civil War details are necessary because it led to the school's closure and the AME Church did not own or control the school until the events of the Civil War led the MEC to sell it to them. Those are key points in the history of the school as identified in the WP:UNIGUIDE recommendations for the lede. We should follow the expectations at both MOS and UNIGUIDE as to content. I suggest making key point proposal cuts here first. Which key points do you see as superfluous? I am ok removing the 2024 statistic. I only put it there because I was accused of not summarizing the entire article.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I have left a comment at WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I've now trimmed the lede further to below 400 text count. I'm not happy with the lede because it essentially meant cutting Daniel Alexander Payne from the lede narrative, but that was the only place I could see cutting given that the school's other names often used in publications, such as the College of Education and Industrial Arts need to take precedent. Because of the nature of the two schools inside one institution and the change of the school from a purely private institution to a public-private one, the details of that arrangement are required coverage in the lede per WP:UNIGUIDE#Article structure. Additionally some sources over a 60 year period refer to Wilberforce by the CNI or College of Industrial Arts names, and for this reason those names should be bolded in the lede as they are other names of the school and are likely search terms. Likewise for Payne Theological Seminary. The prose count is now within the recommended MOS guidelines for lede sections. I don't think we need to trim this any further.4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@GuardianH You have now removed key criteria from the lede, including that the school was not a private university for the 60 years if its history but operated as a hybrid state-private institution. It had two governing boards, one of which was appointed by the Governor of Ohio and was a partially state-funded and governed institution. This type of content is supposed to be covered in the WP:UNIGUIDE#Article structure criteria for lede sections. Additionally, other names of the school are supposed to be covered and bolded in the lede. There were bolded names in the text because much of the literature on the school used those names historically. They are likely search terms.4meter4 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

We have a template parameter that is ideal for this type of info (other names of the school). You could add them (and the dates of when they names were used) to the template parameter |former_names= , where readers can find that info. The part of it being a hybrid state-private institution can be expressed in a sentence or two; it wasn't necessary to have multiple paragraphs on that topic/history (readers should be directed to the history section for that).  GuardianH  22:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@GuardianH Fair enough. I've fixed a few factual errors that crept in. Claiming the AME church as a co-founder isn't accurate. The MEC church was the sole owner and founder of the school. The MEC owned the school and all of its assets, and had control of WU's board and faculty. The MEC church did dialogue with the AME Church and included them in the planning process, and it reserved 1/6 of its board seats for AME church representatives, so there were ties to the AME church from the beginning; but not to the point of claiming the AME Church as a "founder". I therefore added back in the selling of the school to AME church because that is really where the school's definite affiliation with the AME Church began. Additionally, I added a very brief bit on CSU and Payne Seminary to the lead as they both began at Wilberforce and had ties to the history involving the state-private partnership. Let me know what you think. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I would only add that if you intend to expand the article in the future, it could use some more details on recent graduate outcomes, academic programs, etc., so that the article isn't entirely overshadowed by its past history.  GuardianH  19:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)