Talk:Tarleton State University

Cleanup of WP:PROMO material

The entire "Student life" section reads like a college brochure, and seems to be entirely sourced to Tarleton's website. I've WP:BOLDly removed it, as it seems to be more advertising for the college rather than encyclopedic content. I also think we should get rid of the "Notable people" list, and just make a category "Tarleton Alumni", with a wikilink to it in this article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your general sentiment but some of the deleted material is appropriate. It would be better if it were supported by independent sources but that doesn't mean that the university's website(s) are unreliable or incorrect.

The ideal way to deal with the "Notable people" list would be to create either a list article or category and then to include a summary here with a link. ElKevbo (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for restoring the useful parts! I'll look into making a list article when I have time. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kyle, Christopher Scott (1974–2013).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Endowment Size

@ElKevbo has claimed that [www.tarleton.edu/foundation/financial-recap/ the Tarleton source] is not WP:PRIMARY. I'm struggling to see how that's the case. It's Tarleton talking about Tarleton's endowment. And even if it were somehow a secondary source, I can't imagine a universe in which Tarleton boasting about their endowment is independent of Tarleton. It seems to me that they would have a strong incentive to report the endowment whichever way best aligns with their strategy. Am I missing something? EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I misread the article history - apologies. But I don't think that your focus is on the source as being primary but that it's not independent from the source. You're right that it's not independent. But I think it's more than a little ridiculous for you to claim, without evidence, that the university is lying about something that they must regularly report to the government, under penalty of perjury, and that is regularly audited. They're the only source for this information anyway unless you think that everyone else who reports the university's endowment counts the money themselves instead of repeating what the university has already reported.

I suppose if you really want to pedantic you can go find their most recent audited report and cite that source instead. That just seems unnecessary. ElKevbo (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not claim that they were lying. I said that they have an incentive to, while a secondary source does not. What I will say is that their new reported endowment is almost double (~+70) what it was a decade ago. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies. I believe both being primary and not independent make it a less reliable source, and we should select the most reliable source, not the one which is most up-to-date but with an appearance of a COI. I'll go ahead and revert to a reliable source. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

So you're now beginning an edit war because you believe that this university is lying about their endowment, a claim you are making with no evidence, and reverting to a source that is now a decade old? With all due respect, if you don't know how university endowments work then you should not be making these edits. It is entirely plausible that their endowment has nearly doubled in ten years given its comparatively small size and typical performances of endowments during that time. Moreover, the specific source to which you are objecting is only what the university's private foundation manages which is just a portion of the university's endowment; the other portion is held by the system. The most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education is that the university's total endowment at the end of 2024 was $112 million. This matches what data aggregator Data USA says about the university so I'm going to use that source to update the article since this is an independent source. ElKevbo (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL and don't put words in my mouth. I am not saying the university is lying. I have never said they are. Please stop claiming I say that. I AM saying that a better source is one independent of the entity about which a claim is made. It's that simple. I don't understand why you're making a strawman argument against me and claiming I'm ignorant of something I haven't spoken about. I'm glad you provided an independent, secondary source. That's literally all I was saying was needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)