Talk:Hillsdale College/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Christian institution"?

Article reads: While still a Christian institution, Hillsdale no longer has any denominational affiliation,. What does this mean? Must students, faculty and employees be Christian? Casey (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are some references on the subject, if you wish to provide more detailed discussion in the article. Larry Arnn, "Hillsdale and Christmas" "Hillsdale College Guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian college in lede? Renewed discussion

The term Christian college is vague, although it is easily applied to certain institutions. See: Category:Christian colleges templates, which all pertain to clearly defined and particular colleges. In the case of Hillsdale, it may have been founded by Baptists, but the Christianity aspects of its curriculum are minor. Whereas Bible colleges, seminaries, Category:Islamic universities and colleges, etc., all focus on religion, Hillsdale does not. The Christian values that it supports are, in fact, values held dear in many religions. Accordingly, it is misleading to describe Hillsdale as a Christian college in the lede sentence, and not in compliance with WP:UNIGUIDE. The lede might be revised to include a later sentence about its founding. (Similar arguments apply to the "conservative" labeling. E.g., I imagine Hillsdale people encourage wide ranging discussions and views from all sides of the spectrum.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I imagine that Pope Francis encourages wide ranging discussions and views too, but he's still Christian. In fact, it's Christian to discuss everyone's views. As to conservatism, Hillsdale is proudly conservative and makes sure that students are well-educated in Western values and cultural traditions -- the heart of the conservative mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but we generally base articles on reliable sources. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe the college as "conservative" and do not describe it as "Christian" then we follow their lead. ElKevbo (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Harvard was founded by a clergyman – is it a Christian college? And it is viewed by many as liberal – is it a liberal, liberal arts school? I've got no problem with following RS in the article and/or lede to describe Harvard or Hillsdale as conservative or liberal later on in the lede. Rather, this is a UNIGUIDE editing question for the first sentence. It is a private, non-profit, liberal arts college, but it would be silly to say it is a "conservative liberal arts college". – S. Rich (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Srich that's pretty much bullshit. The college self-describes its religious affiliation, which has not been renounced since its founding. Same with Conservative. Conservative is a point of pride, as well it should be. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.hillsdale.edu/christ-chapel/ SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with describing it as Christian and conservative – later on in the text and lede. Again, the first sentence of the lede ought to follow the UNIGUIDE format. In looking at the secondary sources Petersons, Niche, PrincetonReview, BestColleges, etc., we get barebones, objective descriptions. A Wikisearch for "conservative college" produces 23 results, only one of which (BJU) uses the term in the 1st lede sentence. A search for the vague "Christian college" produces 4,080 results, because many more colleges use or have used the term "Christian" as part of their name. But Hillsdale's own mission and profile do not use the term. (And it admits students of all religions.) Also, if we look at {{Infobox university}}, there is a parameter for institutions actually affiliated with different churches. Hillsdale is not affiliated, so it is properly in the Category:Nondenominational Christian universities and colleges in the United States. Let's just stick to the IP's neutral, accurate, and complete lede characterization. That way we avoid WP:UNDUE problems. – S. Rich (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please reread the college's mission statement; it explicitly defines itself as a Christian college. Note further that the college says in the "Aims" section of that webpage; it's implicitly defining itself there as a conservative college and I'd be happy to provide many more reliable sources that support that (accurate in so far as "conservative" is defined in the current U.S. political and cultural context) characterization especially since conservative representatives tried to give the college a special carve out in the recent tax bill. ElKevbo (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at a slightly different primary source: bbnc.hillsdale.edu. Because it presents differing info, I support the guideline that we rely on secondary sources. My editing suggestion is that we keep the first lede sentence completely objective as to "type" and "attributes" – e.g., 4-year, non-profit, private, liberal arts – and add the subjective (Christian, conservative) material a bit later in the paragraph. – S. Rich (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is confusing that there are multiple versions of their website with different text; I wonder if you've found a development website or an archive of an old version but clearly the version without any "prefix" is the primary one. In any case, I still disagree with your suggestion because (a) the institution clearly identifies with both adjectives and (b) many reliable sources also use both adjectives. Moreover, it's critical for readers to know about these characteristics if they're to have an accurate understanding of this institution. ElKevbo (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at WP:WikiProject_Universities/Accomplishments we see a listing of various Category:FA-Class Universities articles. Four of the private US institutions, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Ohio Wesleyan University & Shimer College were founded with religious motivations, but are non-sectarian today. Georgetown University maintains its religious affiliation. The first sentence for each of these Featured Articles simply gives a short name, location, and type-attribute description of the schools. The first sentences do not include any mention of religious or political positioning of the schools. Their religious histories are explained in the lede. The articles do not describe the schools as liberal or conservative. My point is simply one of good editing. We should follow the examples of these FAs and keep the first sentence simple, direct, objective. Using the vague term "Christian college" is not good article editing. Nor is using the subjective term "conservative". These descriptions should be explained later on in the lede and text. E.g., "Hillsdale College is a private, non-profit, liberal-arts college located in Hillsdale, Michigan. Founded by Freewill Baptists in 1844, the college maintains a curriculum offering .... The school encourages, but does not require religious activity blah, blah, blah. The school is regarded as politically conservative by various commentators,[citation] particularly because of its blah, blah, blah. Etc." – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)05:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Political position is not central to the identity of those other institutions; it is for this one. Same with religious identity (although Georgetown is an edge case). These aspects of its identity permeate the college, including its hiring of faculty and staff, recruiting of faculty, and selection of coursework and academic programs so they're critical for readers to know about. ElKevbo (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Srich, what if the new chapel were called Buddha's Garden or Mohammed's Mosque and the college had been founded by Buddhists or Muslims and they dedicated teaching to Muslim or Buddhist tradition? If you go back long enough all Western education sprung from the Church, so what's with the list of Dartmouth and other mouths? Most 17th and 18th Century American colleges and many if not most 19th Century ones were church-sponsored. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not encyclopedic to describe the political ideology of schools in the first sentence of the lead, let alone the lead at all. Institutions known for their liberalism like Reed College or Vassar College or the University of Vermont do not mention political leanings in the lead, even though it is discussed in the text. The curriculum about Western civilization used to be the norm amongst most colleges in the United States. "Conservative" should not be in the lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just your OR disparagement of schools that have not, unlike Hillsdale, self-identified as Christian and conservative. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hillsdale does not self identify as "conservative". It may declare support for some principles that could be considered conservative in the same way that other colleges support principles that could be considered liberal. How was any of the statements I made disparaging? It's hardly OR or disparaging to point out disparities between Wikipedia articles. Please check WP:Good Faith and WP:Cooperation before attacking people's statements. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Academics

Curriculum and Majors
Hillsdale College is a private liberal arts institution accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. Undergraduate offerings include 37 majors, seven minors, and eight pre-professional programs, and students may earn bachelor’s degrees in arts or science. All undergraduates, regardless of major, must complete the core curriculum, a series of required courses in the humanities and natural and social sciences and electives in fine arts, Western literature, social sciences, and modern and classical languages. Hillsdale also offers study abroad programs in Argentina, England, France, Germany, Spain, and Scotland.

Hillsdale’s sole graduate program, the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship, was inaugurated in 2012. Its focus is political philosophy and American politics; it awards PhD and MA degrees in politics. The program graduated its first doctoral students in 2018.

Admissions and Enrollment
Hillsdale is considered “more selective” by U.S. News & World Report. In fall 2017, 41.5% of applicants were admitted, and the entering class had an ACT composite average score of 30.38, SAT composite average score of 1347, and high school GPA average of 3.87. Its current enrollment includes 1,463 undergraduate students and 44 graduate students. The undergraduate student body is 51% male and 49% female.

Rankings
Hillsdale was ranked 71st in the 2018 U.S. News & World Report listing of best National Liberal Arts Colleges. It ranks second for "most conservative" students and sixth for "professors get high marks" in The Princeton Review's evaluation of The Best 382 Colleges 2018. Hillsdale also ranked 163rd overall, including 25th in the Midwest and 119th in private colleges, in the 2017 Forbes report of America’s Best Colleges. Kiplinger placed Hillsdale 14th in its December 2017 list of Best Values in Liberal Arts Colleges and 26th in comparison with all colleges.

References

Reply 10-JUN-2018

Partially implemented

1. The Academic section was replaced entirely with information in the Curriculum and majors section, as the previous text emplaced there was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material.
2. The Rankings section and Admissions and enrollment section were not added, as these statistics are better suited for the infobox using the free data parameter.

Regards,  spintendo  23:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted this. I see nothing that demonstrates our WP text was excessively copied from our cited sources. Let's discuss these proposed changes.

 SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

I've removed the adultery/suicide scandal from the lead because it gave undue weight to one event. Then I added a template that the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article. I hope someone will write a lead that gives a quick summary of the body. YoPienso (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Academics Section

Dear Wikipedia community: In the interest of full transparency, I am a current employee at Hillsdale College and desire to improve the quality of pages related to Hillsdale College. Per Wikipedia’s guidelines related to conflict of interest and neutrality, I write to request the community’s assistance with updating the academics section (which appears to be about four years old) to reflect current information. I have drafted some text that I hope can be useful in this regard. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you!
--Publius818 21:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Publius818:. Could you explain to us what improvements you are trying to make with this proposed substitution of article text. We will need to consider this in manageable segments. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @SPECIFICO: My intent is to improve the page by providing updated information (the current information appears to be at least four years old, based on the citations) and to include subsections in order to format the section more in line with some of Wikipedia's featured education articles (e.g., Michigan State University, Dartmouth College, etc.). Thanks! Publius818 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

My initial impression is that your edits conform more closely to primary sources from Hillsdale only and that they omit some independent reliably sourced information. Perhaps you could post them section by section as diffs on this talk page so we can review them in manageable units. You can just copy a section either to this page or to your talk page, then edit it with your new text and then post the diff on this page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and tried that on my Sandbox page. I see that you've changed the basic organization of the sections. I think it's going to be easier for you to gain consensus for your proposed changes if you organize them as edits within the existing sections and structure of the article, possibly adding sections, but only where the content does not fit into the current format. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I updated several of the rankings from their 2014 to the current (2018 / 2019) rankings. However, I am unsure if the Princeton Review ranking categories are relevant. #3 for "Most Conservative Students" might be relevant, but it does not really belong under academics. Porridge (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Primary topic?

   A case certainly could be made that the college should be the primary topic, tho I would reply that "Hillsdale" almost always refers to one of the IIRC THREE insignificantly small towns, unless one is discussing bastions of American conservative-fringe politics, e.g., "Hillsdale" as distinct from the Foul-Well Consortium; IMO there will be NO net loss in convenience if requests phrased as "Hillsdale" go to the Dab for the college and towns, while those as specific as "hillsdale col" go directly to the institution. (But I'm indisposed from creating to the Dab, so perhaps it will fall to a paleo-conservative to do so. Life is like that.)
--Jerzy•t 16:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

3 April edits

If an editor claims that an edit they're deleting to present the best face of discrimination, it would probably be advisable to read the source. Activist (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The legislation was actually "successful," not "unsuccessful" thanks to bipartisanship on the part of a couple of Republican senators who weren't afraid to kowtow to the DeVos wing of the Trump administration. Hillsdale, via Toomey's special interest amendment, tried to "carve out" an exemption for taxation on endowments that applied solely to itself. Activist (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please make your case here. Your edits have been rejected so the burden is on you to make the case. Accusation directed at other editors are not going to help in that matter. Springee (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made the case. However, these are the ridiculous sorts of bases for the edits of text and/or citations of which you don't approve. For instance: ::Are we to assume an editor is acting "in good faith" when they reject the main source of an article about the Ford Pinto by claiming that the source is not "reliable?" You had written:

Springee (talk | contribs)(→‎Fuel system design: Mother Jones is not a reliable source for fact. This would include in text attributions in this case.)

Mother Jones has been nominated for and has been a finalist in no fewer than 31 prestigious national magazine awards, winning seven times. In 2017, Mother Jones won the Magazine of the Year award from the American Society of Magazine Editors. [1] Perhaps if you remove that long standing text no one will be the wiser. I suppose I could be one of those unfortunates, despite taking pains to avoid contracting it, to succumb to COVID-19, and then no one except you and I might know... [2] You can't expect your deletions to stand if and until someone makes the case in a matter wherein you have appointed yourself the judge and jury. If that were the case, you could delete entire articles that didn't meet your particular disposition on the subjects. Activist (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

First, you haven't made a case for the new information you are proposing to add to the article nor for the changes in wording. Per BLD and NOCON the burden is on you to make the change vs those who object to justify the long standing text. Second, perhaps you are thinking of another article as Mother Jones is not a source in question here. Springee (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of another article. You seem to think that because you don't like a RSS's coverage of an issue, you can claim that they're unreliable. That's the problem. What matters to you is whatever your agenda happens to be, facts notwithstanding. Maybe you can explain to us why you should be okay for you to remove pertinent, properly and solidly sourced text, in any article. We're discussing your behavior and your standards. Activist (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You cited Mother Jones which, as far as I can tell is not a source in this article. I also do not see that the Ford Pinto is mentioned in this article. If you think there is an issue with how MJ was treated as a source in the Ford Pinto article please raise that issue there. Also, please do not imply you are quoting me unless you can provide a link. I was not able to find the quote and failing to include the context where I might have said something similar can be considered misleading. As for the specific changes you are advocating, please make a case for them. I don't see the legislation as significant as it didn't make it into law. The other part was the tone of language which you changed. The original tone was better and reflected the source. Springee (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Revert of my edits

Please look at this and see if you agree with rejecting everything I did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillsdale_College&diff=1002297154&oldid=1002296787

deisenbe (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Affirmative action?

The second paragraph of the Policies section states that Hillsdale College refused to submit the Title IX "Assurance of Compliance" form due to a belief that affirmative action is racism. The two reference sources, however, do not support this description; instead, they both show that Title IX--and Hillsdale's refusal to certify compliance--had to do with federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender, not race.

• From the Sixth Circuit's decision: "The enactment of Title IX in 1972 forbidding discrimination against women in education was patterned after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which proscribed discrimination in any federally assisted program on the basis of race, color, or national origin; both statutes have parallel prohibitions and identical enforcement mechanisms similarly described."
• From Essentials of Sports Law: "Title IX adopts a 'programmatic as opposed to institutional approach to discrimination on the basis of sex in education."
• From Title IX itself: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

I've edited the paragraph, but I'm happy to discuss it if anyone thinks I've taken the wrong approach here. --Shadow (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Conservative in lead

@Snooganssnoogans:, the facts of your recent edit may be true but since that was the article lead the information should come out of the body of the text. I think it would make sense to talk about the conservative nature of the university somewhere in the text then we could use a less abrupt statement about the conservative nature of the school in the lead. Springee (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This has really been discussed exhaustively over an extended period, and there are ample RS references to support the consensus in favor of "conservative". The opening should simply say "private, conservative..." Why is this a matter of concern? My impression is that Hillsdale is proud of its Conservative heritage and teaching. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning this a month after the fact? My last edit kept conservative in the lead [[3]]. Springee (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Because an unregistered editor recently removed this from the lede (without any discussion or an edit summary). ElKevbo (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood but the comment was in reply to my 25 Oct comment with no mention of the IP editor. Based on the above discussion it could be implied that I or an IP under my control made the change. Springee (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no such allegation. Participate or not as you choose. It would have been clearer had I not indented. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the indentation made it look like you were implying to me. I see no reason to remove conservative from the lead based on the current article body. Springee (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Good. Sorry about the mixup. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Saying “conservative liberal”, one after another, is just confusing. Can we say in that sentence: “Hillsdale College is a private liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan, that is known for promoting conservative thought and policy.” 2600:1012:B000:3193:CC7A:E648:667:8B8E (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Bumping conversation from a different epoch in human history, pinging User:Springee, User:SPECIFICO, User:Snooganssnoogans. 2600:1012:B057:4BA0:4014:E14C:555D:654B (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Education=plague

No idea what to make of this: [4] . President of Hillsdale College quoted saying education is like a plague, etc. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:FD2B (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be related to Hillsdale's initiative to establish a network of charter schools and the interest of the gubenatorial candidate in Tennessee. Perhaps you could propose some well-sourced article content that indicates its significance? SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Hillsdale College before coming across that news article. I figured I'd post the link here and defer to the regulars here about its relevance. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Charter schools controversy

Glancing through Google News today and finding this [5] article dated 9/29/22 concerning Hillsdale-affiliated charter schools in Tennessee, with the lede "American Classical Education — a group set up to create a network of charter schools affiliated with Hillsdale College across Tennessee — has withdrawn its applications to open schools in Madison, Montgomery and Rutherford counties", I find no mention of American Classical Education at Wikipedia, nor of any charter schools being affiliated with Hillsdale College.

Now looking at the link provided in the previous "Education=plague" section to Deadline Detroit of 7/3/22 which states "Hillsdale is using Tennessee tax dollars to set up at least 50 charter schools", and also mentions controversy concerning other affiliated schools in Fort Lauderdale, it's clear that this present article on Hillsdale College entirely omits important unflattering information. The article is neither unbiased nor WP:NPOV, and appears to be basically a puff piece. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it your contention that because there is no mention of the aforementioned news article that the entire article is biased? There are over 130 different references from different sources like the New York Times and other news outlets. That doesn't seem to hint at bias toward one source or point of view. There's a section for the schools charter school initiative and if you have a reference, perhaps you could add the missing information there? If there is other missing information, you can add it. Dbroer (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias or not, it's a very significant aspect of Hillside's history and current activity and it does need more article text from the increasing body of RS discussion of this charter school initiative. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem and agree that there should be more text about the charter schools. My apologies if I made it sound like it shouldn't be included because it was biased. The OP (@Milkunderwood) implied that because it was missing that the entire article was biased and a puff piece. I was just questioning that contention. If someone wants to add more about charter schools and add sources, go for it. Dbroer (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Policies section

Is it just me or is this a bit difficult to read, especially as it starts with the statement that Hillsdale doesn't discriminate and then goes on to cast doubt upon that claim. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I've combined the leading sentence of the section with the rest of the paragraph, and edited it to read "Hillsdale's charter prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, or sex, but in the early 1980s, a controversy regarding its practices threatened federal student loans to 200 Hillsdale students." Does that help? Just as an aside, I had a client a few years ago who was a big supporter of Hillsdale. He was every bit as monstrous as one might expect.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak Thanks, although I think I'd break that into two sentences and remove "but" and maybe add "relating to discrimination"? See MOS:EDITORIAL. Doesn't sound pleasant to have a client like that. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about breaking it into two sentences and removing "but". I changed it to "Concerning such discrimination", if that's all right with you. Feel free to change it, or if someone else has another suggestion... I also broke the long paragraph into two, as you can see. Seemed a little easier to read that way. Carlstak (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak That’s fine. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Free will Baptist

The word "fundamentalist" has been removed, presumably due to that word being missing from our article page on that sect, even though there is extensive discussion of their fundamentalist beliefs. At any rate, here are a couple of RS links on the FWB's. [6] and [7] . They appear to differentiate themselves from the mainstream southern evangelicals in that the latter believe that once born again, you are saved whereas the FWB's believe you can stray and cancel your salvation at any time. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the term "fundamentalist sect" because the Free Will Baptist article doesn't call them a fundamentalist sect. You had previously removed the descriptor "abolitionist" did not exist in the article. However, the group themselves describes themselves as abolitionists:

"Prior to the Civil War, the Free Will Baptists in the North were staunch abolitionists"

Source: https://fwbhistory.com/?p=2709

Additionally, they go on to acknowledge that it was Free Will Baptists that founded the college:

"Most of us were already aware that Hillsdale was founded by the northern branch of our denomination, which merged with the Northern Baptists in 1910-11. The article observed that the first graduating class at Hillsdale, five students, included a woman and a Black."

Source: https://fwbhistory.com/?p=818

Given that, I think there's more precedence to support the original text of "It was founded in 1844 by abolitionists known as Free Will Baptists" rather than "It was founded in 1844 by members of a fundamentalist sect known as Free Will Baptists."

If we're going by your original premise that "abolitionist" was not a descriptor in the Free Will Baptist article and should not be included, why would we add a descriptor from a third party source if "fundamental sect" is not part of that same article? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the original text as it is supported by other sources than Wikipedia itself and could be easily added. Thoughts? Dbroer (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well the "abolitionist" thing appears to be self-serving spin by the highly spin-prone Hillsdale, possibly to offset the widespread impression that they have been a bit too clever to opt out of Federal anti-discrimination regulations. I don't see widespread discussion of them as abolitionist as a key descriptor. There are mentions of them as being a Northern fundamentalist sect in opposition to the Puritan and other Northern US Christian branches of the mid 1800's. But in the North by the time Hillsdale was founded, most folks were anti-slavery. If they had been anti-slavery in 1800, that would be a different matter. I'm not an expert on shades of fundamentalism, but it's clear to me from all available sources that they are evangelical fundamentalists akin to the founders of Liberty University, e.g. with a twist. Let's see whether anyone else has thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a descriptor? Can't we just say that it founded by Free Will Baptists? Why do we have to describe them? Let that Free Will Baptist article speak for itself. No spin by anyone. We have sources (I mentioned one above) that support that but it seems like either descriptor is unnecessary in the end. e.g. "It was founded in 1844 by Free Will Baptists." Dbroer (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems OK. The other article could stand some improvement, but that's not relevant to this one. More important is trimming the copious primary-sourced content on this page. I think there is also available sourcing to include more about Hillsdale's charter school initiative across the US. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Using editorials as a RS for a statement of fact

In the 21st Century section there is a sentence "In November 2021, Hillsdale purchased land in Placer County, California for nearly $6M with plans for a new campus.". There are three sources cited for this statement of fact, one of which is an editorial from the Sacramento Bee. At the top of the editorial it states "Jan. 23—OPINION AND COMMENTARY" (emphasis provided by the publisher). According to the Wikipedia RS standard, it states:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Given that the reference is an editorial and clearly an opinion piece trying to support a statement of fact, this source should not be used by policy/standard. Further, there are two other sources supporting the statement of fact so this third source is extraneous.

I believe there needs to be a second sentence or section for reaction to the move which could include that opinion piece as a RS for the reaction but by policy, the editorial should not be a reference for the statement of fact. I've removed the source to follow the policy but other editors reversed my edit so I'd like some feedback from more than one editor on using editorials for sources of statements of fact and the need for a second sentence for local reaction to the announcement (which I support). Thoughts? Dbroer (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please state what content you think is inappropriately verified solely by the Bee source, and please present and alternative proposal for the article text based on the Bee source. Your selective interpretation of policy is contrary to widespread Wikipedia practice on thousands of article pages. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've already stated what content I feel is inappropriately verified by the editorial. I've also stated that it can be a source for local reaction. Do you not agree that the Bee editorial is labelled as "OPINION AND COMMENTARY"? Do you not agree that the RS standard states that editorial commentary and opinion pieces should rarely be used as RS? Both of those statements are true. I am not interpreting anything by going by the stated policy word for word and what those words mean.

Having said that, how about we add a sentence about local reaction as I have been suggesting instead of using the editorial as a RS for a statement of fact?

"In November 2021, Hillsdale purchased land in Placer County, California for nearly $6M with plans for a new campus. Local reaction to the announcement was mixed.

That would separate the two, provide local reaction and not use an editorial to support a statement of fact. Dbroer (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

What fact do you think is verified only by the analysis article? It is not an editorial, which would refer to a statement that the publication itself takes a position on some issue. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please state where are you seeing that it's an analysis article. It's labeled as opinion and commentary, not analysis. In fact, they put that in capital letters for emphasis. The very definition of editorial is an opinion which is what the article is titled with. Where are you seeing that it was written an analysis article as opposed to what it is labeled as? Dbroer (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dbroer. If we're keeping the article text as is, we should remove the Bee source. It's there to support statements of fact, but it's unreliable and unnecessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Dbroer has refused to state what fact is being asserted solely on the analysis reference. If they do, we can have a reasoned discussion. They've also declined to offer additional article text that would reflect the analysis in the Bee piece. And denigrating the analysis of a competent professional journalist as "opinion" is really not helpful. Our articles are full of such sources, from fact-checkers to cheerleaders to critics. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"They've also declined to offer additional article text that would reflect the analysis in the Bee piece."

Really? Because two replies ago I suggested the following:

"In November 2021, Hillsdale purchased land in Placer County, California for nearly $6M with plans for a new campus. Local reaction to the announcement was mixed."

"denigrating the analysis of a competent professional journalist as "opinion" is really not helpful."

How am I denigrating anything when the author themselves labelled their content as opinion and did so in capital letters?

All I have stated is that the reference is placed in the wrong spot. You started by undoing my edit and stated that "It is OK to also have a reaction piece from a respected local paper" to which I agreed and suggested a separate sentence and use that Bee editorial as a source. Further, I'm just trying to follow the standards that have been laid out. Just because something was used elsewhere doesn't mean that it should be allowed. What is wrong with having a separate sentence about local reaction? Dbroer (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, the glaring fault of this page is its parroting of a load of primary-sourced, self-promoting description of Hilldale and its lack of coverage on the significant initiatives into Charter Schools and its rising national profile among the thought leaders of the 21st Century conservative movement. I'd like to see some energy directed that way instead of repetitious nitpicking over a possibly redundant or possibly underutilized RS citation. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That is a separate discussion and beyond the scope of my request for feedback for the inclusion of an editorial as a source for a statement of fact. Dbroer (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've removed a personal attack by an IP. I have to agree that the article uses Hillsdale as a source far to much. It needs to be edited to remove some self-sourced trivia. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The page arguably contains more text than all serious academic papers from Hillsdale. No ranking information. No demographics. Avocats (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

World War I

User:SPECIFICO removed:

Hillsdale continued to operate during the war, but had limited enrollment because so many young men went to war. Half of Hillsdale's students who enlisted became officers, as was typical for men with some college education; five became lieutenant colonels, four received the Medal of Honor, and three became generals. Sixty students died in the war.

FloridaArmy (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hillsdale logo.gif

Image:Hillsdale logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Content removals and inappropriate additions

The same editor also removed the radio station from the entry.

The same editor also removed the 1968 historical marker incsription "The inscription reads: A marker designating the college as a Michigan Historic Site was erected by the Michigan Historical Commission in 1968.

In 1844 a group of Freewill Baptists organized Michigan Central College at Spring Arbor. This college was the first in Michigan to grant degrees to women. Moved to Hillsdale in 1853 and chartered by the legislature in 1855, the school was renamed Hillsdale College under an independent board of trustees, its only controlling organization. The charter opened the institution "to all persons ... irrespective of nationality, color, or sex."

" with an edit summary noting the school's current political stance.

The same editor also added undue and unwarranted details about the suicide of a former president's family member.

Not good. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Wordy

"Roche resigned in late 1999, following the scandal surrounding the suicide of his son's wife, Lissa Jackson Roche, who was found shot dead in the college arboretum. Ms. Roche had stated that she and her father-in-law had been engaged in a 19 year long sexual affair. On October 17, 1999, she said that she had engaged in a 19-year on-and-off sexual affair with him. She fatally shot herself at the Slayton Arboretum on campus with a .38-caliber handgun from her husband's gun cabinet. Married to Roche's son, known as Roche IV, Jackson Roche was employed by Hillsdale as the Managing Editor of Imprimis and Hillsdale College Press." This is repetitive. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:AC39:F311:DC1E:D05F (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed copyedit, keeping all the information, can be proposed here.15:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)