Talk:Hamline University

message: The Mitchell Hamline School of Law (https://www.hamline.edu/academics/college-schools/mitchell-hamline-school-law):
"Mitchell Hamline School of Law was formed in 2015 by the combination of William Mitchell College of Law and Hamline University School of Law. . . .
"Mitchell Hamline School of Law is an autonomous nonprofit institution governed by an independent board of trustees, with a strong, visible, and long-lasting affiliation to Hamline University"-- Should it be listed  or linked to the separate entry?  At present, it is only referenced in  the section on publications and sort of in the section on construction.  That's inadequate. Kdammers (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law school 

message: I added three improvements to that paragraph based only on published information (NY Times, The Atlantic and statements from University), they have all be removed by @TrangaBellam and they suggested discussing it here. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia and I would need some help to understand how I can improve and discuss what I added. 
I added:
* (1) description with Wikipedia internal links to the image that is at the center of the debate. This seems fundamental to understanding the issue, the professor did not show a satirical or mocking image of the Prophet but a very relevant piece of art in a art class. Both the author and the work of art have Wikipedia page. I do not know why this was removed. 
* (2) reference to the comment of the past president of the University about the long-lasting negative impact of the decision of current administration.
* (3) the text, as is read now, do not refer to "Isamophobia". This is the main source of the controversy. The University administration defined the act as islamophobia, while the main association of Muslims (Council on American-Islamic Relations - CAIR) in the US and many scholars strongly stated that it is not islamophobia. Context and intention matter. There were no Islam experts supporting the idea that the act of showing the Prophet as done by the teacher was islamophobic. Not having this information in the current paragraph makes the issue less clear. 
Any help or comments would be much appreciated. IDruben77 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: IDruben77, I came here because of the January 17 NYT article about the teacher´s lawsuit against Hamline. I do not agree with the wholesale reversal of your properly sourced content and agree that the comments of the past president of the University are noteworthy. Furthermore, I think that the reverter is apparently unwilling to discuss this for the last 3 days, editing plenty elsewhere as I write this. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of this content is UNDUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

text: See the current version. Best, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

text: If I am "the reverter," I have not added more comments here because I've said what I have to say and simply repeating myself won't help anyone. This isn't information that is particularly harmful for the article so there is no rush to remove it or edit it down while other editors are invested in simply adding more and more details right now. ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

text: *We have, So, please stop adding quotes from the email/press-release. Summarize than quotefarm.
TrangaBellam, I think the quote "the university withdrew their accusation" is not sufficiently clear, which is why I removed it. Could you let me know why you removed it? I think it is not clear for the following reasons:
First, the University did not renew the contract of the professor. The university did not change its mind on this key issue. 
Second (less important), the university accused the professor of islamophobia, and it did not "withdraw" it; it stated its use was flawed. 
Third, a bigger issue is at stake that goes much beyond this university. The university claimed that not offending the students was more important than academic freedom. This is not an accusation, and it is an idea, a perspective on what matters. The university realized that this idea is dangerous (for example, a student that finds evolution offensive may ask the university to fire the professor teaching it). In this paragraph, this important issue that has ramifications beyond Hamline and, therefore, encyclopedic value is not discussed. 
Four, the university has one accusation (Islamophobic), not more than one. 
Based on these four points, I think that the sentence now present should be changed in one that specify the walk back on the Islamophobic accusation and on the priority between academic freedom and students' views. 
A side note: from the existing article it seems that only the students accused the professor of being Islamophobic, this missed the more important point that the University administration accused the professor of Islamophobia. 
IDruben77 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

text: See my rewrite and propose additions/alterations at the t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @TrangaBellam, the text was very good. I rephrase a couple of sentences and added a wikipedia internal link to the president page. IDruben77 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: We are very conservative and cautious about adding names of people to articles if they aren't already public figures. Adding their names to this article doesn't seem necessary for readers' understanding so we should leave them out. ElKevbo (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Agree, let's no add the names. IDruben77 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that despite the supposed retraction, the professor's lawsuit against the university is presumably still going ahead, as too is this complaint . So it is still an ongoing issue. 92.4.23.2 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on Teacher fired over Muhammad art

message: How is this Undue:
"In 2023, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) listed the university in its list of "10 worst colleges for free speech"." 
24.177.167.113 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See the edit-summary. You need to show compliance of DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression 

message: Hamline admin made the unfortunate decision to non-renew an adjunct faculty after an art history class in which the instructor showed an image of Muhammad from a medieval manuscript to the class.  This created national headlines and should be included in the history of the university. 24.154.76.202 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably take a look at the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about the Muslim Image controversy?