Talk:University of Austin

Unaccredited

I have removed "unaccredited" from the lede multiple times. The word should not be in the first sentence. They do not currently operate an accredited university, but their own website is clear that they plan to operate with accreditation, and I have seen no source that can possibly support describing these plans as for an "unaccredited university". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it is not currently accredited but they're not currently delivering degree courses. We have no idea if they will seek accreditation or have their degrees awarded by another body or go solo. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

We obviously don't know the future, but we have some idea if they will seek accreditation: their website FAQ says they are seeking accreditation as a private postsecondary educational institution. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Without being overly familiar with higher education in the US, is accreditation or lack thereof an active choice for the institution rather than a state it is currently in? Obviously pending RS being cited for it, is it not factual to say they are an unaccredited institution until the point where they are accredited? Or is that something that isn't inherently clear from a non-US perspective? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Two reliable sources that say the University does not have accreditation are [PinkNews] According to the University of Austin website, the institution will not be offering degrees for the foreseeable future because it does not yet have accreditation. and [New York Magazine] The unaccredited University of Austin is “dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth,” proclaims a post on Weiss’s Substack. So we have at least one RS saying it's unaccredited, and one saying that it's not accredited yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The New York Magazine piece is an opinion piece (and an attack piece). And the fact that they are not offering degrees until they get accreditation supports that they should not be described as an unaccredited university. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess that circles round to my other question. Is a lack of accreditation a choice an institution makes, rather than a state it may be in? That they are not currently accredited is surely the same as being unaccredited? Would it not be factual to say they are currently unaccredited pending application for accreditation? Or does the terminology have some non-obvious meaning within the US higher education context? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I am arguing it is a choice, and there is an important difference between a "not accredited university" and "university not yet operating due to a lack of accreditation". There are organizations (*cough* Trump University *cough*) that describe themselves as universities but do not actually function as such. The distinction between scams and legitimate universities is accreditation. In the US, there are a few respected regional organizations that give accreditation to colleges. They have a process where new organizations can start operating as an accredited institution. At no point would the attested plan of Bari Weiss etc. result in their operating a non-accredited university, and I suspect there could be a BLP issue in implying they were planning that. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Then to prevent the need for frequent/semi-frequent reverts over it, should we re-phrase the addition @Amanda A. Brant: just made as something like As of 2021 the institution is not currently accredited but is seeking accreditation.? Two other RS that could be cited here that have not been cited in the article yet are Austin American-Statesman and The DA Online. The Telegraph piece by Gabriella Swerling also notes the lack of accreditation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't exist, period. It's not an "unaccredited university" because it's not a university, it's nothing more than a plan at this point. Calling it an "unaccredited university" is specifically to denigrate it, it is a bias against the proposed institution because there is a stigma behind being "unaccredited". Being that it doesn't even exist yet, there are no classes, period not just no degrees. There's no staff. There's no facility, accreditation is irrelevant. "unaccredited" implies it's operating without accreditation. It's not. J1DW (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, we should be cautious with the "unaccredited" label as it's associated with pseudo-intellectual quackery. The university is not operating without accreditation at this time because it not operating. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Structure

Given how new this institution is, with reliable sources only being published over the last few hours, how do we want to structure this article? Is there any other similar institutions we could use as a frame of reference for headings? Obviously there's the risk of it not meeting WP:NOTE depending on how it succeeds/fails over the coming months, so going too indepth is probably not warranted. But it'd be good to maybe set some scaffolding in place as things develop? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Structure is looking good now! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree it looks fine. Since it's only a concept at this point, there isn't much information to include. The article doesn't need to be greater in information than the actual proposal. And if it goes nowhere, that's something that could be discussed in the future. J1DW (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

See also

My rationale for Trump University to the "see also" since the comparison has been made very widely, including by Nikole Hannah-Jones (who would count as an expert source if it wasn't a tweet, where context and nuance is hard to express). Guettarda (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

15 could you join the discussion here. The connection with Trump University (and Prager University) lies in the fact that it's not a real university - thus far, it's only a proposed 503(b) that's presenting itself as if it were a university. Guettarda (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

But it's not "presenting itself as if it were a university" this is just your bias. It is going through the same steps anyone would have to take to come into existence. It is not currently, nor has ever claimed it is already in existence. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia's NPOV policies preclude tailoring this page to include every negative reaction people had as if they were valid criticism. J1DW (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, it's not for us to judge - it seems like it's the most common response to this project. Nothing in RSs yet, but I'm sure there will be plenty of them soon. Guettarda (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that you had started a talk page discussion. I find the connection a bit strenuous - any university in the process of establishing itself will call itself a university, even if it has not yet begun with actual "university operations". e.g. the London Interdisciplinary School before September 2021. I agree that we should wait for RS, there is no rush. 15 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:SEEALSO it's a "list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles". There's no requirement for RSs, but "editorial judgement and common sense". Given that just about everyone is making the comparison between these two (including Hannah-Jones, a very notable expert), it seems logical. On the other hand, I have not seen anyone making a comparison with Hillsdale College, which is an actual, recognised institution. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Expecting RSs for one but not the other seems like an inappropriate application of a double standard in an article that's already basically a promotional ad. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You are free to remove Hillsdale College too, if you feel so strongly about it. I don't expect a RS for every see also entry, but a RS comparing/connecting Trump U and U of Austin would convince me to include it (->"editorial judgment and common sense"). So would a stronger connection than both calling themselves a university without being a university in the traditional sense (yet). Not sure what "an article that's already basically a promotional ad" has to do it. Best, 15 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Hillsdale should be removed. I'm asking you to explain why you removed one one "See also" that everyone is connecting this with (including a notable source) while leaving another that no one is.

As for the second part - I wasn't the one who added the {{Advert}} banner. The article is based on the org's own website and a few puff pieces. It's basically hype. Guettarda (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hillsdale College is mentioned in the nymag (opinion?) piece [1] and I find the comparison convincing. Hillsdale is and U of Austin is meant to be a right-wing alternative to "traditional higher education". Trump University was just a scam without any (obvious) political nature. 15 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But since the consensus seems to be that that isn't an RS, how's that different from Hannh-Jones? As for saying that Trump University was an "obvious" scam - no, it wasn't at the time, not to people who spent thousands, tens of thousands, to learn from Trump's hand-picked experts. Hillsdale is a world apart - it has over a century of history, and a decent reputation. Even Liberty University is more of a proven thing. As far as calling this place rightwing - Bari Weiss and much the rest of the IDW crew don't consider themselves rightwing. Even I don't think that's an apt description of Steven Pinker. (Personally, I don't think this is another Trump U, but I'm suspicious it may be vaporware; if it were just my own opinion I'd link to Theranos.) Guettarda (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Obvious" refers to Trump U's lack of a political nature. U of Austin is at least perceived by many as a right-wing project per [2]. You're right that Hillsdale is also quite different from what the U of Austin is now. I think our dispute arises from the lack of information on the project (and the fact that the U of A hasn't really done anything yet) - it might be best to not speculate and just get rid of the entire section for now. 15 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The references to fake unis is not appropriate at this time. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Solipsism 101: It isn't for us to judge whether those comments are appropriate or not. Our opinions on what people are saying about the topic don't matter. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I quit being lazy and tracked down some real sources. Guettarda (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Trump University never was accredited, never sought accreditation, and never claimed to be a degree granting institution. Such a comparison gives a strong impression of political bias. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. People who make the comparison aren't unbiased. But it's our job to report on all sides, not to eliminate one perspective or another simply. Guettarda (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning that people with a bias are comparing it to Trump University is not the same thing as including Trump University in the "See also", which itself implies there is some connection between the two. Hence the word "also" in "see also". If the "see also" included other extant or proposed universities you might have a point. But "See Also" isn't for linking random derision and nay-saying to a subject. "see also" according to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/see_also means "A suggestion that other topics of study are related to a current topic." To say Trump University, an actual business with real employees and students and had no political or sociological founding principles that actually operated for profit and never sought accreditation is particularly associated with this proposed university is unfounded. J1DW (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Context

In trying to improve this article, it would be helpful if there was something to point to about the whole anti-woke/IDW/campus free speech/anti-CRT/gender-crit movement, but I can't find anything. That said, I don't even know what to call it, though it most definitely has become a thing in the last few years. Is there an article about that stuff that I just haven't found? Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a form of culture war, generally but not exclusively stoked from right-wing viewpoints, though I don't think there's a more specific umbrella term for it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Advisory board

I noticed that Dr Fell has re-added the advisory board that was removed previously. While I think the composition of the board is interesting, I don't see much value in a simple bulleted list. I'd prefer to see it removed, although including individual members whose involvement is discussed in RSs would be beneficial. Guettarda (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

College and university articles frequently feature lists of associated people – alumni, faculty, staff and advisors. These are typically presented as bulleted lists. Seems highly relevant and of value. Dr Fell (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There are no alumni, faculty, and almost no staff. I'm unfamiliar with long lists of advisors either - can you share some similar examples? Guettarda (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The list is probably too large, hence I originally added four members who were named in The Telegraph.[3] I think the ones who have been picked out as notable provide some context to the venture when so little is known (i.e. actual academics, not all right-wing etc) It would be completely unnecessary on an operational uni's page, which would have decades/centuries of info to include. Solipsism 101 (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Banners

I restored the {{advert}} and {{notability}} banners. While it's based on reliable sources, they basically consist of a mixture of press releases and snark. There's no investigative reporting, no evidence (yet) that this is real. People are either taking the press release and website at face value, or they are doubting them.

I'm certainly inclined to believe that there will be enough here to meet Wikipedia's standards, but at this point there's no way to know that for certain. We've seen plenty of flashy press releases that never amount to anything, especially in the venture capital world (which basically this is). Guettarda (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with {{notability}} banner for an institution that has just been announced even if reading the notability guidelines myself it is my understanding that the University of Austin does indeed belong on Wikipedia, but I fail to understand the reason for the {{advert}} banner, can you provide a quote from the article that you consider to be written as such? --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This, for example, feels like pure puffery:

Kanelos has said the institution will be focused on "the intrepid pursuit of truth" and exposing students to "the deepest wisdom of civilization."[4] The institution reportedly raised $10 million in private donations in the two months prior to launching. Within days of the launch on November 8, 2021, Kanelos said he had received more than 1,000 requests from people to participate in the institution, indicating such a need for this type of school. The institution aims to raise $250 million to launch the undergraduate and graduate program during the initial few years.[2]

Sure, there's no analysis to balance that reporting, but it's PR nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the "PR nonsense" from the article. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@RaphaelQS: you also removed the course start years, which I do not think is promotional. If we are saying they are without accreditation, we should note that they are planning degree courses in 2022 and 2024. It is valuable context. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Solipsism 101 I agree that context is valuable but primary sources are not admissible on Wikipedia, especially primary sources on themselves. I would be more than happy to add it if there is an external source that reports the information. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's a surprisingly simple fix :) I'm no longer have an objection to removing the {{advert}} banner. Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Founders

Any idea why Boghossian, Hirsi Ali and Stock are listed as the founders? The article calls them "founding faculty fellows", but it looks like Ferguson, Lonsdale and Weiss are more involved in the founding. (Lack of sources, of course, but still we should try to get it right.) Guettarda (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Because the board was considered promotional, but the founding faculty was not (likely causing confusion). I agree Weiss at the least had a pivotal role. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Some sources naming the "founders":

The founders of the school include former Harvard President Lawrence Summers; former ACLU President Nadine Strossen; Arthur Brooks, former president of the American Enterprise Institute; and journalists, academics and other former university presidents.

Austin American-Statesman

“So much is broken in America. But higher education might be the most fractured institution of all,” said Pano Kanelos, the incoming president of the University of Austin. He announced the nonprofit university’s creation Monday in former New York Times journalist Bari Weiss’ newsletter, who is also one of its founders. Kanelos is the former president of St. John’s College in Annapolis, a small, private liberal arts school. [...] Its founders also include former Harvard President Lawrence Summers; David Mamet, a playwright; former American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen; academics and other former university leaders.

The Dallas Morning News

--RaphaelQS (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Response

I've removed the comparison to Trump University and reworded the remnants of the nascent response section. The source only notes that some non-notable Twitter users have made the comparison, does meet RS standards and should never have been included. That some Twitter users have drawn this comparison isn't particularly relevant or useful. Dr Fell (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this opinion is not notable. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I was unsure if Hannah-Jones meant this was the new version of the real estate school Trump University or if she meant this was a university for Trumpites. The latter makes quite a bit more sense. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed again after Amanda A. Brant restored. Yahoo source was the same Wrap article, but hosted on Yahoo News. Daily Kos is non-NPOV. Dr Fell (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You keep claiming that it's not-NPOV, but it's a fair representation of the sources. There are several discussing it, which attests to its notability. Please stop edit-warring, and gain consensus for your proposed changes. Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS would put the burden of gaining consensus on the editors seeking to add content. Solipsism 101 (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The content was there before Dr Fell started to selectively remove it. WP:ONUS puts the burden on those making the claim that statements discussed in a wide variety of reliable sources don't meet RS standards, and that whitewashing criticism is somehow bringing the article closer to NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are consistently injecting a non-NPOV stance in the Response section. The most recent edits do not accurately capture the broader response to the announcement of UATX. The earlier mention of Trump University was removed because the connection was spurious, reliant upon an association fallacy and the used a non-reliable source. Those behind UATX have revealed few details of their plans. As such, some alleged criticism isn't suitable for inclusion in the article as it is responding to hypotheticals or conjectures about UATX. This may change as they announce more concrete plans, reveal backers, admit students and begin instruction. The edits you are making are assigning UATX an ideology and an association with Trump despite none have been expressed. A good faith reader would come away misinformed because of your edits. Dr Fell (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is not about avoiding bias, it's about reporting on bias in a manner that reflects the coverage in reliable sources. The Trump University comparison is what reliable sources are reporting on, so it's appropriate. Based on coverage in sources I think I'm giving it too little coverage, not too much. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bias is being introduced by your edits. You are relying on cherrypicked and non-reliable sources to give the article an editorial slant that is not warranted and is not appropriate. To wit, your intent appears to be to build an association between UATX and Trump University where none exists. Again, a good faith reader would come away misinformed because of your edits. Dr Fell (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bias is being introduced by your edits

Can you be more specific - which edits?

You are relying on cherrypicked and non-reliable sources to give the article an editorial slant that is not warranted and is not appropriate

I disagree. I'm using some of the highest-quality sources in the article. I'm also using eight of the 17 sources used in the article, covering a range of sources.

To wit, your intent appears to be to build an association between UATX and Trump University where none exists

Hannah-Jones tweet is a notable part of the response to this. Six separate sources address it, including one published in WaPo by a notable academic and public intellectual (and there are lots more sources that I didn't include, mostly because I'm not familiar with them, or thought them too marginal).

Again, a good faith reader would come away misinformed because of your edits

If I'm missing something important, it's a wiki - you're more than free to add sourced content. If there's a problem with balance I'd say that a left-leaning perspective on this is probably missing - after all, Douthat and Drezner and centre to centre-right. There's more to add in the sources I have, but figuring out how to fit things together into something readable and coherent takes a bit of effort. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

At least currently, left-leaning perspectives are rather prominently present in the article, with a sourced description in the second sentence, and again further down, of the university as having been alleged to be "anti-cancel culture" and "anti-woke". While the president's founding message cites cancel culture, without calling it that, as a phenomenon that the university was founded in response to, I haven't seen them calling themselves "anti-woke". Which is not to say that this allegation, given that it has appeared in the media, should not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Further cricitism of the undertaking is discussed under Reception (which currently cites a good variety of opinions). Ni'jluuseger (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability

The template questioning the article's notability makes no sense. The launching of a new university, founded and supported by many famous academics, as a counter to the leftist trends in the rest of academia is clearly something very notable.  Numerous articles in the mainstream media about UATX are also listed in the references. How could this template be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortho (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The notability is questionable because it doesn't actually exist - it has no staff, no programmes. It has a physical address that's apparently a law firm. It says it has raised some money, but it has done so through a fiscal sponsor that had zero assets at the end of 2020. It's very likely to turn into something real, but right now there's no way to tell if this is real or vaporware - we've got a press release, we've got responses to that press release. And that's about it. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this quote from John Warner (emphasis added) captures the issue of notability quite well: Maybe I’m wrong and there’s been a lot more detailed thought put into this than it appears in this moment. Or maybe I’m right and we’re looking at the high point in the existence of the University of Austin. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The notability today is very questionable. If they manage to operate an undergraduate college in 2024, surely they will be notable then. But apart from their own blog posts and private plans, this seems to be not much more than a promise of a lecture series next summer. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the notability tag. The college might not exist, but Wikipedia does indeed cover notable vaporware - see Category:Vaporware. This is just the college equivalent. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is admissible under the notability guidelines, but this kind of action is a bit aggressive when we are trying to reach a consensus on the subject, this banner only signals that there is a discussion about this point. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't realize there was a discussion when I removed it, which is why I added something here after I checked - I assumed it was a drive-by tag. Sorry! That said, if this effort truly peters out with no notice, then the article can be quietly merged /redirected to Bari Weiss in a year. For now, while it's a developing story, it's fine (there's an essay somewhere about giving articles on recent-ish news some time to grow). My only concern is that I don't think the current category of "Educational institutions founded in 2021" is really correct - this is more like "Proposed educational institutions", but I don't think that category even exists, since notable not-yet-existing educational institutions are very rare (this article only?). SnowFire (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point on the cats. I added Category:Education in Austin, Texas for want of something better. I do think Category:Companies based in Austin, Texas is still a valid category though - a nonprofit is a subset of companies. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I went one step up the category tree and went with Category:Organizations based in Austin, Texas as a safe option. Guettarda (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi @abductive, I see you've removed the notability tag on the basis that 'even sketchy projects can be notable'. That's what philosophers call a quantifier shift. The question here is not what can be notable but whether this project is notable. I'm putting the notability tag back up on the basis that there's broad consensus here that notability remains under question. Could you leave it there until at least a few more people come back with opinions, please? Thanks.

Seeking accreditation

@RaphaelQS: Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, we can't say that they are "seeking accreditation" in Wikipedia's voice, since the accreditation process can't start until you have faculty, curriculum, and students. In addition, they say they are working through the Higher Learning Commission, but the HLC doesn't accredit schools in Texas. I'm not saying that we should omit the claims, but we should attribute the claims. "According to" covers a multitude of sins. Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this remediation. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Would this phrasing pass muster? As of 2021 the institution is not accredited but according to the institution it is seeking accreditation. with same source that is currently used, as it mentions this issue in the second sentence? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not "according to the institution" it is according to The Dallas Morning News. The newspaper does not state that it obtained this information from the University of Austin. --RaphaelQS (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh! Got it. Seems at one point over the last day or two one of the primary sources from the institution's own website, which does indeed corroborate the report by The Dallas Morning News, was removed and I hadn't noticed. That source has a rather large section on seeking accreditation. Does that help? Or do we need a secondary source that explicitly states what the primary source says? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I've proposed that this article be deleted. It is based on the faulty premise that the University of Austin exists, which is manifestly does not. At present, it is no more than a concept punted in the media by some individuals. Such a concept lacks the notability for a Wikipedia page - indeed there is a risk that Wikipedia will simply serve as an extension of the PR and counter PR already present in the media. Further, this page appears to be being used as a vehicle to attack the concept and this is not an appropriate basis for a Wikipedia article. Should the University of Austin become a substantive thing, for example through the granting of degree awarding powers, then a Wikipedia article would certainly be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.64.111 (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion of the article University of Austin home in on the university's current lack of accreditation (and thus, ability to confer degrees), on the university being mostly in a planning stage, as well as on fears that the article will just serve as PR for their plan. The fact that a Wikipedia article adds to PR, whether positive, negative or both, about anything at all is not in itself a reason not to have an article. The notability of the University of Austin, in spite of the fact that it has just been founded, is not yet teaching and has not yet been accredited, resides in its actually having been established (rather than only announced), the affiliation of many very well-known persons with the venture, and extensive coverage in the media, including the mainstream media. That is to say, the phenomenon itself seems sufficiently notable; issues around accreditation and the university's uncertain future can be (and are) discussed in the article itself. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there an WP:AFD submission for this article? If so, should that not be linked here and on the main article? That said, a brief look at both the open AFD discussions and proposed deletions do not show this article as being nominated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not according to Special:WhatLinksHere/University_of_Austin. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with proposed deletion

Not sure whether this message belongs here or whether there is a place to discuss individual deletion proposals (I haven't found one). I disagree with the proposed deletion of the article University of Austin: the university actually exists, having been founded on the 8th last, even if there is no teaching yet. A large number of well-known public figures are connected with the venture. There has been a significant response in the press and in social media. It would make no sense for Wikipedia to look away from this development. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. See "Notability" section above. Ortho (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep. I'm not sure if this is really a stand-alone article or a section in another (perhaps as-yet unwritten) article, but a PROD doesn't make sense. Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn't be an uncontentious deletion so WP:PROD is not suitable. It probably requires an AfD discussion. The notability tag should probably in due course lead to that or to the contents being distributed to other pages. The premise of the article is that the University of Austin exists, when it obviously doesn't. The idea that a university is 'launched' and therefore somehow exists because of a single article on a Substack page is absurd. The introductory paragraph at present is itself a function of this absurdity; in the first sentence the project is 'proposed', in the second second sentence the 'it' could refer to either the proposal or the putative college, in the third sentence 'they' appears (a reference to the proposers?) and in the fourth it's become an 'institution'. The rest of the article is about the politics and funding of the proposal. The article is really therefore about a proposal. It's an extension of public discourse around the wisdom and funding of the proposal. That doesn't meet notability guidelines. Just as a side comment, and as an indicator of how far this proposal is from being an actual university, UATX as a brand could may very well be challenged in copyright law by The University of Texas at Austin. I slightly suspect the proposers have chosen that title to incite a response from the establishment manifesting as UoT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:6417:1A01:D02:278D:D6C0:745B (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"The premise of the article is that the University of Austin exists, when it obviously doesn't. The idea that a university is 'launched' and therefore somehow exists because of a single article on a Substack page is absurd." It would be, if that were the case. But there's a difference between writing a blog post and registering a college - so it exists in a legal sense - with which many prominent persons are involved and that has attracted significant media attention. (Is there an online business register or such that can be searched?) I agree that UATX is currently a far way off from being a functioning, teaching, degree-conferring university, nor is it certain to ever become that. But the point continues to be that the phenomenon's notability doesn't pivot on that. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"UATX as a brand could may very well be challenged in copyright law by The University of Texas at Austin." I did wonder about the fertile ground for confusion there. But how would it benefit UATX to be challenged or even sued for its name? Simply the added publicity that would generate? That would be a Machiavellian gambit indeed! Ni'jluuseger (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ni'jluuseger: But there's a difference between writing a blog post and registering a college - but have they done so? I don't recall any source saying that they had. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A taxable entity called "UATX" is registered with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, as can be looked up on the Texas Secretary of State corporation search page. I can't be sure it's the new-fledged venture under discussion here, but I'd imagine that if, as per their FAQ, they're "seeking initial accreditation as a private postsecondary educational institution through the Higher Learning Commission, an accreditor recognized by the United States Department of Education, and authorization from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board", they can't apply for that in the name of a blog post; they'd need to be a legal entity. Though an expert opinion here would be welcome. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ha! @Ni'jluuseger, Machiavelian indeed! I'm with @Guettarda on this. There's no evidence the 'college' is registered. At the moment, it's just a concept some famous people are punting. I don't dispute that concepts can be notable (see the cat. discussion on this page), but this one doesn't seem to me at present to be so. A corollary might be Duncan Jones (formerly, Zowie Bowie) writing on his Substack that he's going to launch a fruity David Bowie sauce; and that he has a bunch of famous people who say they'll put up equity. And that he's applied to the Department of Agriculture (you know, or wherever) to be a recognised producer of sauce. But there's no actual sauce yet. Or even a formalised company which seems set up to source the ingredients and produce the sauce. The Department of Agriculture hasn't even said a valid application for the sauce has been put in, let alone allowed the sauce to be registered. The two questions at issue here, IMHO, are first whether Zowie Bowie's sauce proposal would be notable enough at that stage for a Wikipedia article, or whether that would be using Wikipedia like a news site. And, second, whether it would be notable as an actual Sauce? I think it's easy at this state to say that it would NOT be a notable sauce and that it arguably could possibly be a notable proposal. I'd still err on the non-notable side, though. Part of what influences me is that - as someone's already pointed out here - the names attached don't seem to have a clear and substantive relationship with the proposed college. Their roles are wholly unclear, in fact; even the unquestionably legit scholars with apparent curriculum duties. I'd like to hear, for example, how Katherine Stock will develop programmes without actually moving to Austin (which she has made clear she will not be doing). At present, it still looks like a press release simply pointing out all the famous people who've agreed to attach their names. Anyhoo, there's my tuppence worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:6417:1A01:2117:B52F:62BD:C073 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If Wayne Rooney, Don Henley, Christiane Amanpour, Chris Hadfield, Condoleezza Rice, Yuval Noah Harari, Judy Collins and a whole slew of other public figures attached their name to, or in some way were involved with, the development of this fruity sauce, *and* the brand's launch provoked a news and social media hullabaloo in spite of it not yet being on sale, *and* we lived in a world where fruity sauce had as much gravitas and public interest as universities do, then Wikipedia might be forgiven for having an article about such a development. The question of how Judy Collins will taste the sauce without actually moving to Austin is really a matter for Judy Collins to resolve.

"There's no evidence the 'college' is registered." There is, if they're the UATX mentioned in my previous comment, but it would be nice if this could be either confirmed or ruled out. I really don't know. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll wait and see. But just one thing; Judy HAS THE SAUCE ALREADY, apparently. https://betterafter50.com/judy-collins-and-her-secret-sauce-for-staying-young/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:6417:1A01:40D0:D518:7147:341C (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There now – if Judy Collins didn't need to move to Austin, maybe Katherine Stock won't need to, either! Ni'jluuseger (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Cicero Research

On its website, https://www.uaustin.org/privacy-policy the UATX has a DISCLAIMER that says "At present, UATX is fiscally sponsored by Cicero Research, which is an exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit organization." Does anyone know anything about Cicero Research? https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/cicero-research,861325445/ lists it as having no assets, revenue or liabilities. Vexations (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably just what you already know. Associated with Palantir founder Joe Lonsdale (who we surprisingly do not have an article on yet) [4]. Daily Beast links to the ProPublica non-profit explorer entry on Cicero Research. This source says that Cicero Research is acting as a temporary nonprofit sponsor, as UATX has not been granted nonprofit status yet. It also says that Joe Lonsdale "runs" it and quotes from a 2020 tax filing that its mission is to “create and distribute non-partisan documents recommending free-market based solutions to public policy issues,” and “produce and distribute non-partisan educational materials about the importance of preserving Texan policies, values and history.” This German Source calls it a consulting/advisory organisation. 15 (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception

The tone of this section reads like an advertisement. No other university article would include a sentence like "The feedback from the school's current programs – Forbidden Courses, Intellectual Foundations, and the Graduate Symposium – is resoundingly positive" with a citation from the university's own website. 169.234.245.121 (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was very over the top. This content was recently added by Ayvln (talk · contribs). I'm going to place a COI notice on that user's page. Marquardtika (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Primary source for founding announcement

The first sentence of the History section says that the university was first publicized in an article by founding president Pano Kanelos. I added a reference to the article which the sentence described, not because it needs more support (it is supported by two secondary sources), but because it seemed like a practical way to offer a pathway to, and details about, the thing being described. Isn't it often the case that a primary and a secondary source complement each other, with the secondary source establishing notability and the primary offers readers to "see for themselves"? (WP:PRIMARYCARE might be relevant.)

Anyway, the addition was removed by distinguished editor @David Gerard. Here's the proposed reference: Why is it not useful? –St.nerol (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It literally doesn't add new information? It's functionally a WP:SELFPUB source in a non-RS and says nothing to back the wiki text that isn't in the cited sources - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know exactly on what basis The Free Press is called a "non-RS", but think that seems to be beside the point anyway, when the very subject matter of the paragraph is the proposed reference. It's only supposed to support the existence and publication details of itself, and for the reader it adds the information of the title of the article and makes it conveniently accessible. In what way would this make Wikipedia worse? Is WP:CITEKILL a concern? –St.nerol (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It still adds literally no information and it's utterly self-aggrandising in its lack of actual information. It would be unlikely to pass WP:ELNO muster. What is the encyclopedic content in this page you're wanting to include as a reference? - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a reference to the actual document being discussed in the text. There is an encyclopedic value in providing a reference to the document we describe. Is the document self-aggrandizing? Ok, then the reader can form an opinion about that. WP:EL does not apply to inline citations, but even if it dit, I don't see what point of WP:ELNO would be relevant here. –St.nerol (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

...reasons to refererence the original document are still here. The main arguments against inclusion seem to be WP:SELFPUB (but a self-published source can be a source on itself by WP:ABOUTSELF) and WP:ELNO, which explicitly does not apply to references. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

References

New Inquiry article

This page recently had a quote from an article in the New Inquiry that's since been removed, citing WP:UNDUE. Given that this is the only review (as far as I can tell) that's been published by someone who actually attended the university, I'd argue that it's worthy of inclusion. That said, I'd like to get consensus before adding it back. cc:@Marquardtika. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the author's opinion is noteworthy here. Who is Noah Rawlings? And I don't understand the justification for picking the particular text you picked from his long article to include here. If we are to include something from Rawlings' piece, it would be better to try to summarize it than to WP:CHERRYPICK one particularly inflammatory quote. Marquardtika (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as this article is concerned, Noah Rawlings is the only perspective in a reliable source (afaik) that has actually taken a class at UATX. I chose that quote because it seemed like a clear summary of his general issues with the university. I’m fine with bringing back the source and summarizing his conclusions rather than quoting directly as a compromise. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Also I don’t think WP:CHERRYPICKING is relevant here. Rawlings doesn’t exactly praise UATX on other issues. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you take a stab at summarizing Rawlings' article. I'm thinking something like "In 2023, Noah Rawlings took the Forbidden Courses class at the University of Austin. He wrote about the experience for The New Inquiry..." etc. I'm still trying to figure out who Rawlings is though and struggling to understand why his opinion is noteworthy. Is he a journalist, academic, commentator, etc.? There's really not much online. Anyone can write a commentary piece, and The New Inquiry is open about their POV. Marquardtika (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Noah Rawlings is quoted because of the rule about stating opinion on Wikipedia (WP:ASSERT).

There is no undue/due weight problem here, especially since the passage was used in the "reception" section of the article. I would argue too about the article inclusion, as it is indeed one of the only testimony of a journalist attending one of those forbidden course, and as I do not currently see a worthy reason to remove this opinion from the article.

I reverted back to the version including Rawling's article, considering the debate is 2 weeks old and there has been no Wikipedia infringment rule. Igriffin Hiérocéphale (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No one has answered the question "who is Noah Rawlings and why should we care about his opinion?" I'm genuinely asking. You describe him as a journalist but he doesn't seem to be. The New Inquiry ran his piece but that doesn't make him a journalist. He doesn't have other pieces there or anywhere else that I can find. Sure, we can include people's opinions. But we have to a have a reason to do so...like they are a subject matter expert. I asked The Midnite Wolf if they could summarize the article and I'm hoping they do. But there's no consensus for the current version. Marquardtika (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)