Talk:Rock Valley College

message: As a part of the CC task-force being assembled to review and clean up CC articles, I wish to begin discussion on a rewrite for this article.  While it is clear some noted controversy occurred for a time period for this school, more details, citations, information needs to be presented to make the article a professional one.  I would like to begin hearing ideas on this from editors of the article. I will wait 14 days before making any changes.
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite and edit

message: I removed the block of text virtually repeating word-for-word the summary of articles linked to at the Rock River Times.  If people want to read more about this scandal, the link is there to follow.  I don't think it should take up two-thirds of the Wikipedia article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.51.98 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Havens vs. Chapdelaine

message: Message to recent editor(s), readers and Wikipedia Owner(s):
Improvements are always welcome.
The newly-named "Controversy" section is a reader-friendly summary of cited articles and court record.
Recent edits requesting additional citations in the new "Controversy" section strongly suggests the editor(s) have not read the newspaper links provided or court case cited in the section. The fact is "The Rock River Times" was the only news organization to uncover most of the controversy.
All facts stated in this section are just that, which have been published in newspapers and/or court record and broadcast on local radio and/or television programs. Readers, including editors of this page, should read all the articles and the court case cited, before assuming there are missing citations.
As to the amount of space the section occupies in relation to the rest of page: this is an irrelevant point. If more contributors added new and relevant material, the pecentage would obviously decrease.
Corruption in government-operated educational institutions in Illinois is well known, whether it takes the form of the recent admissions scandal at the University of Illinois, which was published in the "Chicago Tribune" to Triton Community College's awarding of construction contracts to businesses with ties to organized crime. 
Specifically, the Chicago Tribune reported Feb. 18, 1990, that in July 1988, D & P Construction of Chicago was given a $4,600 no-bid contract to grade the college's soccer field. The company was owned by John DiFronzo, a top-ranking Chicago organized crime figure, and his brother Peter. The article details other incidents when the college did business with alleged organized crime figures. 
The Chicago Tribune also reported Dec. 2, 1984, a grand jury investigated whether federal funds were involved in contracts that were allegedly awarded to companies with ties to organized crime. 
Given the fact that Rockford has long been a community under the influence of organized crime, as evident by numerous news articles, including a March 4, 1984 article published in the "Rockford Register Star" titled, "The Mob in Rockford" and photo exhibits at the 2007, federal, Chicago Mob trial named "Operation Family Secrets," it does not take a huge leap in logic to understand why some would not want the information posted available to the public. 
A note regarding the link to the photos: The photos feature alleged hitman Frank Saladino and alleged Rockford Mob Boss Salvatore Galluzzo that were submitted on July 26, 2007 during the federal government’s case against the Mob. The FBI surveillance photos were taken on April 20, 1989 and show Galluzzo leading Saladino in a parking lot. 
Further, Triton Community College had strong ties to the Rockford community through former Rosemont Mayor Donald E. Stephens and several Rockford-area businesses. , 
I will wait for a response before making changes.
Editors, readers and Wikipedia owner(s) should also be aware that this section may be under attack by people who do not want this information distributed, especially in light of new construction at RVC and Chapdelaine's recent, non-renewal of his contract in Los Angeles. 
From Oct. 28, 2009, "Los Angeles Wave": "When the time came later on in the afternoon for the board of trustees to vote on extending Chapdelaine’s contract, it voted 'no.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezer4718 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Weezer,
Thank you for your comments.  While a scandal at a school may be of note, it should not dominate the article.  You mentioned the UIUC scandal, which is a perfect example of how such scandals should be covered.  If you look at the main UIUC page at University_of_Illinois_at_Urbana-Champaign#Political_influence_over_admissions you will see that the event is only briefly mentioned, with a wikilink to the main article covering the scandal: see University of Illinois clout scandal.  This is to allow each article to stand on its own and withstand strict scrutiny by the community. The event itself must meet the guidelines of WP:Notability for the community to allow it to remain in the article.  Corruption, while well known in the State of Illinois, is not unique.  The college itself is notable for just being a college.  But the scandal ,while interesting to local readers, may not have as much value to the global audience who are only seeking the simple 5W approach to the wiki.  In addition, the former president himself, if noteworthy enough for his failures or accomplishments could also be in his own article given the material you are presenting above. However, given the commentary is about a living person, caution must be exercised in the material. 
In summary, each article should encompass the direct topic, and only when it meets WP:NPOV, WP:Notability, and WP:BLP Guidelines.  To address your concern regarding information on the scandal not wanting to be seen, I would agree that some may want to hide it. However, you would have to show that those editors on wiki are doing just that and bring the issue to arbitration for resolution.  Thank you for your input and response.  Also, a quick note; technically, owners have no influence into the editing process as wiki is a not-for profit and is run by volunteer editors and admins.  We as the community make all of the guidelines and articles through debate, collaboration, and consent. 
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Weezer-
While I find it typically unproductive to address personal queries on a talk page, I will for the sake of this discussion.  
1) I am not making a claim for a global audience, but rather working to help the article conform to wiki standards for articles regarding this particular subject matter: specifically WP:Universities.  I am not posting on behalf of a global audience, but rather advocating the policies already set forth in the wikipedia recommendations. As to being a gatekeeper, each editor is responsible for being writers, editors, spell checkers, and fact checkers within the confines of the time they allot to working on wikipedia.  It is incumbent on all people here to help make the wiki better by checking work, checking sources, and making edits and suggestions to improve the work for readers. 
2)It is not necessarily an editors job to uncover corruption in Illinois in anyway.  That is what a reporter is for; newspapers, magazines, journals, and even Wikileaks all take part in that activity, as it is what they do best.  Wikipedia is not for relaying primary research.  Rather, as an enyclopedia built by its users, it is to cover the primary aspects of a topic and discuss which information is germane, and what should be placed elsewhere.  
3)I am fully aware of the corruption and mismanagement in the state of Illinois. It disgusts me as much as anyone else who pays their taxes and seeks responsible government.  
4) My involvement with UIUC is simple: I am a graduate student.  I dont work for them, speak for them, or particularly like many of the people who run the institution past or present. As with all institutions, it can always be better. However, being a student somewhere doesnt disqualify me from editing pages related to education. In fact, I refrain from getting involved with any page related to U of I to avoid the perception of editor bias. But being a student does not preclude anyone from editing. 
5) I am would fully agree that the problems outlined with regard to RVC and its buildings are convoluted and obviously should be addressed.  However, again, local newspapers, reporters, and even blogs such as http://district100watchdog.blogspot.com/ are appropriate venues for this.  Wikipedia would not under WP:Notability guidelines. 
Now, to respond to your comments and the edit issue:
a) I have taken the courtesy to make suggestions and invite comment before making changes from all quarters. TO date, other commenters seem to be for the reduction of or removal of the controversy information.  However, I am waiting to allow for more discussion before making edits as this is something you take seriously.  Especially since they are the only edits you have made on wikipedia since December of 2008 Special:Contributions/Weezer4718. This would suggest this is a topic of particular interest for you.  
b) If an editor has a particular tie to an event, a company, or an institution, it is best they refrain from editing. For example, if you were the author of the Rock River Times articles, and were the one fired from RVC, it would be a conflict of interest to edit. In addition, if you are the author of http://district100watchdog.blogspot.com/, you might also have an ax to grind with regard to this article. 
c) An arbitration committee or admin review of the section would likely conclude the section is problematic and recommend a rewrite. 
d) I have taken the time make a suggestion (see below), with an appropriate citation from a reputable source that will withstand scrutiny as opposed to simply deleting the section. It may be easier to make suggestions there rather than make personal attacks on editors. 
I would prefer to avoid an edit war on this topic. Therefore I will submit the citations and section to review to other editors and admins to gauge their opinion and hold a vote on the issue in the talk page. Furthermore, I will make a direct request for advice regarding the strength of the articles you cite. Your thoughtsIlliniGradResearch (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Rewrite Warning and Discussion

message: I first posted above regarding a rewrite 3 months ago, and from the discussion here it seems that a rewrite is appropriate.  It seems alot of the controversy material is improperly cited and written by one particular person, so i will begin a rewrite page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch/sandbox/rvc so others can contribute over the next few days.  I will post the final change within the next few days. I welcome all input and your thoughts IlliniGradResearch (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun adding new material and citations to the article to create a uniform appearance. I have also begun to add citations banners on the controversy section as it is all un-cited material to allow the author time to correct this before deletion.  Again, I look forward to ideas and additional citations for use s the article develops further. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What's been rewritten so far looks pretty good.  I would add information about extracurricular campus activities and student government as well.  Also, any way you can include a brief, objective summary of the controversy is most welcome.  The information as presented currently gives the impression that the author has an ax to grind.  I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that.  Lastly, photos of the campus would be a nice addition.  Keep up the good work, IGR. CarpeCerevisium (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Carpe- I agree the text makes it seem the author has an ax to grind, which is why I put it in its own section and marked it.  I emailed him with a message to begin citing or it would be altered and/or deleted.  Phase four includes the items you mentioned.  For a sample of the way I typically write these articles, check out John Wood Community College or Shawnee Community College. I appreciate any input and advice you may have.  thanksIlliniGradResearch (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite discussion continued

message: It seems much of the content of what is now the controversy section comes from one particular writer, who has not cited 905 of it, and none of the citations conform with best citation practices. I have tagged the section as WP:disputed, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, with individual citation tags for all uncited claims. Given the focus of the controversy is on the actions of one person it seems, WP:BLP would seem to apply and should be given strict scrutiny to ensure we avoid libel and POV material.  I invite comments, citations, and work with regard to the controversy section. I will wait a bit before deleting the section. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assert that the citations themselves are not NPOV, because the Rock River Times employed the subject involved with the firing of Chapdelaine and the subsequent stories as a staff writer, who wrote many of the stories cited in the controversy section.  I'm no expert, but I would think that that violates NPOV pretty hardcore. CarpeCerevisium (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of NPOV and BLP Material

message: In line with the response I made to Weezer above, I wanted to discuss the controversy section within the article. An article usually should cover the prime material of the 5W+H aspect of the topic, but should include major events as well briefly. If we look at the main UIUC page at University_of_Illinois_at_Urbana-Champaign#Political_influence_over_admissions we see that the event is only briefly mentioned, with a wikilink to the main article covering the scandal: see University of Illinois clout scandal.  This allowed each article to stand on its own and withstand strict scrutiny by the community. Of course, the event itself must meet the guidelines of WP:Notability for the community to allow it to remain in the article.  Corruption, while well known in the State of Illinois, is not unique in any way, but if well covered could be its own article.  However, I am of the opinion that given the author of some of the material is a part of the controversy it could indicate a definite bias. Furthermore, it was not picked up by major press or MSM.  It seems to be a local scandal or issue, and I would invite anyone with other citations to discuss them if they are available.  Do any citations outside the rock river times exist?  I have done a cursory search of the archives and major indexes at UIUC and havent found anything yet, but want to invite discussion on this as a courtesy.  Your thoughts?
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How to rewrite, or Address the controversy section

message: After reviewing the current citations, i found all of them were written by the man that is said to have been illegally fired.  Therefore it tends to be conflict of interest with those citations and a question of credibility.  The one article in the section that wasnt by that author had only to do with the rebuilding of the campus.  Therefore, I went on a hunt and used the university archives to locate an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education , a publication of note and respect within the community, and found a citation that covers the firing in brief. Based on that citation, I propose the following brief text for the section labeled controversy. 
Main text
In January of 2004, The Board of Trustees of Rock Valley College voted unanimously in January to terminate the employment of it's president, Roland J. (Chip) Chapdelaine.  Randy J. Schaefer, chairman of the board of trustees at the time, declined to give a reason for Mr. Chapdelaine's removal. Chapdelaine had been the president of the college since 1997. Chapdelaine had alienated faculty members and other employees with what was viewed as reckless spending and poorly executed reorganizations of the college. Namely, the president's plan to pay for building construction and renovations by issuing more than $60-million in bonds. Groups representing faculty, professional, and support-staff members all voted no confidence in the president prior to his termination.  
Citation
Wilson, R., Evelyn, J., & Fogg, P. (Feb 6, 2004). Professor's Departure Stirs Questions at Dartmouth; Trustees Fire President of Rock Valley College; U. of New Mexico Names Director of Latin-American Institute.   The Chronicle of Higher Education. , 50, 22. p.NA. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A147116449&source=gale&userGroupName=westerniul&version=1.0
I will continue to search for relevant citations that are from publications of note that will withstand scrutiny, but I welcome everyones thoughts and opinions.  IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A review of citations and suggested text for controversy

message: IlliniGradResearch asked me to give a third opinion as a neutral party. Here is some general advice:
*The pressing issues are those of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The controversy section cannot rely solely on an editorial written by the person who made the claims stated in the article. We need reliable third-party sources to verify this information and ensure that the whole picture is presented.
*See Wikipedia:Criticism sections and Wikipedia:Criticism for guidelines on whether a "controversy" section is warranted, and if so, how it should be organized.
*Right now, the section violates our policies on WP:NPOV and undue weight. Remember, articles must be a summary of the sources used; if only a brief mention is made about one issue, do not dedicate half the article to it.
*I suggest moving the entire controversy section to the talk page for now, as it is a BLP nightmare and its content is disputed. The rewrite IlliniGradResearch has begun is a good start toward resolving the issue.
*All users need to focus on the content and not on other users. See WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, and WP:NPA.
Personally, I think that if there is any recoverable info from that section, it should be briefly summarized in the history section rather than in a POV-fork section. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General advice

message: As has been stated by other experienced editors in the room, I agree that the Controversy section is riddled with POV and BLP issues that make it unsuitable for the page. The articles are rife with conflict of interest issues, and the publication seems to not be a periodical or record for the area it is in. Furthermore, the article should be dealing solely with the history of the school and not with the minute details of the scandal. Therefore, I am moving all of the aforementioned material to a subsection below here on the talk page for discussion.  While a believe that this will be upsetting to one of the editors, the consensus is clear that the section does not belong.  IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section Movement

message: Moving beyond the content that has taken up 3/4 of the talk page so far, the history of the article currently seems to stop at 45 years ago...I tagged that to get things started along.  --SteveCof00My Suggestion box is open 07:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing History, added tag