This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
University of Austin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
seeking accreditation as a private postsecondary educational institution. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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)
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.
“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.
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)
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)
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)
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.[1] Guettarda ( talk) 19:21, 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)
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.
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [1] Why is it not useful? – St.nerol ( talk) 18:07, 13 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
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)
The section titled "Academics" has little information on academics at the school (other than a lack of commitment by high-profile board members and advisors). Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 17:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
What do we know about UATX's finances other than what they have reported to the media? Can any of this be verified? This IRS 990 looks nothing like what they are reporting. UATX reported net assets of $10,199,936 on June 30,2022. Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/871925354
This article lists several founders. But are they really founders, or people who lent their names? It seems like Pano Kanelos, Joe Lonsdale (who put up most of the initial money). Niall Ferguson, and Bari Weiss are the real founders. Pano Kanelos lists Niall Ferguson, Bari Weiss, Heather Heying, Joe Lonsdale, and Arthur Brooks. Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if this topic is correct for this article but I am creating a stub for Pano Kanelos. /info/en/?search=Draft:Pano_Kanelos Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 18:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The UATX constitution is an important founding document for the school. Apparently it means that there is no faculty senate and no tenure. [5] https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-constitution-of-academic-liberty Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This interview of Pano Kanelos in Jewish Insider looks like an important document in understanding the vision of Pano Kanelos and the University of Austin as an elite university. It includes information I have not seen before, such as the vision of its ultimate size (4000 undergrads and 1000 grads). [6] https://jewishinsider.com/2021/11/an-interview-with-the-university-of-austins-founding-president/ Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 15:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure that the THECB action is worth putting in the lede. It's already in the History section. I have never seen something like this in a lede for a higher ed institution, particularly an elite one. Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
While it's been assumed that the student body will be largely white and male, there will be no documentation of student body demographics.The US Department of Education publishes for all schools that receive Title IV funding in the College Scorecard, but UATX may not be eligible for several years. Will it be ok to note journalist assessments of the student body in the interim? Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
University of Austin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
seeking accreditation as a private postsecondary educational institution. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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)
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.
“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.
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)
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)
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)
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.[1] Guettarda ( talk) 19:21, 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)
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.
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [1] Why is it not useful? – St.nerol ( talk) 18:07, 13 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
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)
The section titled "Academics" has little information on academics at the school (other than a lack of commitment by high-profile board members and advisors). Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 17:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
What do we know about UATX's finances other than what they have reported to the media? Can any of this be verified? This IRS 990 looks nothing like what they are reporting. UATX reported net assets of $10,199,936 on June 30,2022. Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/871925354
This article lists several founders. But are they really founders, or people who lent their names? It seems like Pano Kanelos, Joe Lonsdale (who put up most of the initial money). Niall Ferguson, and Bari Weiss are the real founders. Pano Kanelos lists Niall Ferguson, Bari Weiss, Heather Heying, Joe Lonsdale, and Arthur Brooks. Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if this topic is correct for this article but I am creating a stub for Pano Kanelos. /info/en/?search=Draft:Pano_Kanelos Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 18:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The UATX constitution is an important founding document for the school. Apparently it means that there is no faculty senate and no tenure. [5] https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-constitution-of-academic-liberty Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This interview of Pano Kanelos in Jewish Insider looks like an important document in understanding the vision of Pano Kanelos and the University of Austin as an elite university. It includes information I have not seen before, such as the vision of its ultimate size (4000 undergrads and 1000 grads). [6] https://jewishinsider.com/2021/11/an-interview-with-the-university-of-austins-founding-president/ Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 15:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure that the THECB action is worth putting in the lede. It's already in the History section. I have never seen something like this in a lede for a higher ed institution, particularly an elite one. Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
While it's been assumed that the student body will be largely white and male, there will be no documentation of student body demographics.The US Department of Education publishes for all schools that receive Title IV funding in the College Scorecard, but UATX may not be eligible for several years. Will it be ok to note journalist assessments of the student body in the interim? Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)