Talk:University of Virginia

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

TK I see you removed so content (some of which I admit was overly harsh) but I can find sources for the other information such as Jeffersons want to prevent theology from being taught, the Wahoo term and its relation to alcohal usage, and other things. I should have cited souces and I apologize.--IScott 21:03, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Teresa Sullivan

I've looked and can find no evidence that incoming UVA president Teresa Sullivan "majored" in Women's Studies, as this article alleges. Her CV of January 2010 shows no major for her B.A. from Michigan State University, and Sociology as the field of study for her A.M. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Chicago ( In any case, her undergraduate major 40 years ago has virtually no bearing on her qualifications to be president. Likewise, I uncovered no evidence whatsoever of any "questions of her ability to lead the University". HaywoodJ 22:25, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

It looks to me as if you are a registered editor here, HaywoodJ. Is that incorrect? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:33, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
Are you suggesting I just go ahead and change it? HaywoodJ 08:28, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

2 Week Block

You can explain yourself then. --Jpatt 22:45, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Salient facts?

TK: "We don't accept censorship here. Why would you remove salient facts and make the edit comment that you made this more accurate?"

What salient facts did I remove? Are you referring to the unsupported claim that Dr. Sullivan "majored in Women's Studies", which I replaced with "true and verifiable" information for which a source was provided, as required by Conservapedia's Commandments? Or the completely unsupported allegation that there were unspecified "questions of her ability to lead the University"? Or bringing the comment about the wahoo fish more in line with what the source said? How do any of these not improve the article's accuracy? DuncanD 16:22, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
You mean to tell me you couldn't, after exhaustive searching, find any support that she essentially took "woman's studies" type of courses, Duncan? You couldn't find one source that brought into question her leadership ability? There is a responsibility that goes with stating you have improved something, and that goes beyond removing points that are not supported adequately in your opinion, and inserting only items you agree with and have found citations for. If you say you looked and couldn't find anything that goes to the preceding points, I will take your word for it. But are you willing to agree I should block you for ideological editing if I search and find such sources? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:10, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Ok, maybe I'm ignorant of how things work here. I'll be happy to admit it if I'm wrong. But your editorial guidelines indicate that information posted here should be "true and verifiable" with sources cited (Conservapedia Commandments 1 & 2). Now you seem to be saying that my replacing information that was not verified or sourced with information that was verifiable and sourced was "censorship". The responsibility of supporting statements resides with the person making those statements. It is not required to prove that unsupported claims are untrue. This would be to presuppose that the initial claims, even without support, are true until shown otherwise. That's not the way it works in any form of civilized discourse I am acquainted with. My impression is that unsupported claims that fit the ideological presuppositions of the authorities here are automatically assumed to be accurate, while statements that are supported but at odds with the prevailing ideology are dismissed without cause. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But I don't see how my replacing an anonymous, unsupported claim that Dr. Sullivan "majored in Women's Studies" with the verified information that she was a sociologist and experienced academic administrator is incongruous with the editorial guidelines here. Respectfully, DuncanD 21:58, 17 August 2010 (EDT)