Talk:Pensacola Christian College/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright?

This seems to be a copy and paste job. -- Stevey7788 05:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like it comes straight out of the school's own advertising. Also the article has some serious NPOV issues. It is just praising the school from a very non-neutral viewpoint, neglecting to mention any controversies regarding their fundamentalist theology and strange policies. --MMAACKS 01:44, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Obvious copy/paste. Needs to be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryansking (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 April 2005 (UTC)
Some people just want controversy. I do remember reading alot of this in a brochure once... but never mind, I'll add some stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuspower (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 April 2005 (UTC)

Latest changes

Lateset Changes seemed like a plug for pensacolachristiancollege.com, and nothing more. It contained many links to that site and many errors (possibly on purpose) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuspower (talk • contribs)

    • No, it wasn't. And it's still necessary to at least mention it, no? If you think there are errors, fix them rather than striking whole sections of the article. I've done a bit of research on the school (I've never gone there, but I got boatloads of mail from PCC in high school and have friends who have gone to Bob Jones and Liberty), the Student Voice link looks necessary to me - because there was a dispute that looks like it was major, therefore qualifying it as controversy - but needs context. That's why I wrote that section.
For other editors: here is the section of the article we are discussing.
A full list of rules from the 2001-2002 Student Handbook are available at the website of an unofficial school newspaper, The Student Voice (http://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/resources/pcchandbook2001.txt); this site also offers a "Rules Compendium" (http://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/rules.htm) gathered from several of PCC's Student Handbooks. PCC does not provide copies of their Student Handbook over their official website.
A PCC alumnus, along with several current students, ran an unofficial (and unsanctioned) newspaper called the Student Voice from 1996 to 2003. This newspaper was created to protest the rules imposed by the college, which they saw as a form of legalism, and to assert that the rules actually prevented the college from attaining its very objectives. In response to the inaugural issue (http://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/archive/svhorton.txt) of the Student Voice, Dr. Horton issued this speech (http://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/archive/svhorton.txt), which another faculty member followed with a sermon about rebellion.
Some PCC students still run the PCCBoard (http://www.pccboard.com), a forum where students and moderators engage in heated debate over social issues related to "Generation X Fundamentalism". Although more conservative than The Student Voice, this site encourages its members to keep their identities on the forum secret, since the forum is still not well-looked-upon by PCC administrators, who threaten to expel or demerit current students who post there, and to remove alumni who post there from their alumni records. (http://www.studentsreview.com/student_groups.php3?ID=294)
Granted, the first of those paragraphs can probably go with no problem (Student Voice does have a link to an old set of rules). So taking out just the first of these three paragraphs leaves only two ext links to the Student Voice site in the main body of the article. I'd say then, that mentioning the Student Voice and PCCBoard is completely fine, since both have caused controversy (see the Bob Jones University article's section on interracial dating for more information about why a school's treatment of policy violators is notable). Why did you also remove the mention of PCCBoard, by the way? It's more notable than some other sections of the article. Google turns up many more results for PCCBoard than for "Robert Howell" + PCC or "Robert Howell" + Pensacola, for example. In the future, since this page has gotten a lot of edits lately by several different users (see its history), please ask on the talk page before going around removing whole sections of an article. By the way, thanks for clearing up the rules section; during my edits of that part, I was going by old copies of the rules and what I remembered kids in my homeschool group discussing during high school. --Idont Havaname 04:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I am sorry. I saw the IP address: 68.156.93.130, and thought (apparently I did not make my diff selections correctly) that is where the changes came from. 68.156.93.130 is the outgoing IP address for the Pensacola Christian College students. A combination of rules that did not exist(or at least since I have been there), the IP Address and the number of links to Pensacolachristiancollege.com caused me to believe that it was someone posting to be an annoyance, and to plug a site without updates for 2 years. I was very wrong. I will remember to ask on the talk page before I do anymore changes like that.
Also, I added the section on Notable teachers, because I thought it would be of value to peole looking up the college. When I first visited the college, many people used to tell me of Howellisms and other items that I had no clue about. I thought it would be a good section to place on the article, so that when someone says, "gah! Howell!" or something similar about a teacher, people will be able to know what they are talking about. There are 3-4 other teachers on that campus like that, but the only one I knew enough about I wrote about.
Thank you for not getting too upset with me. :) --Jspr 05:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I added back the two bottom paragraphs (with one of the ext links to the Student Voice site taken out, so there's only one there now that's in the main article) and split up the Controversy section into Scripture-related/rule-related sections (using the Bob Jones article as a model). I think that the main issue about the Student Voice guy is that he didn't start the newsletter until he was an alumnus and felt strongly enough about his work on it that he kept it going for seven years. For most college newspapers, that sort of dedication from / conviction of an editor is unheard of. And at the time, it was considered a pretty big deal, I would have thought. So, anyways, feel free to make any additional revisions. An idea for a new section is to make an alumni list, if you know of any alumni who have become nationally known for their work in the ministry, or elsewhere. I'd think that given that PCC is a notable Christian college, at least a few well-known people have graduated from there. (Put their names into Google and make sure they return some results, though... I'd say at least a couple hundred results, if you can.) --Idont Havaname 07:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regulation section

Please stop adding the following:

  • Skip Chapel service, unless they are sick.

(Redundant to item: Skip Campus Church services)

  • No extra studying during exams after lights-out - at 11.

(Redundant to item: Stay up past 11:00 (students under 23))

  • Listen to Jazz

(Should have been added to the list of prohibited music)

  • Men may not give their suit jacket to their date.
  • Wear jeans
  • Wear Abercrombie and Fitch - as it is anti-Biblical

(Listing every item of clothing one cannot wear at PCC will make the section long and uninteresting. Perhaps a section on the dress code would be appropriate. Additionally, comments are really unnecessary here. Let's try to keep the page free from bias and let the reader form his/her own opinion.)

  • You may not put up a picture of unmarried people in physical contact unless they are "little kids." (these are sold in the bookstore).

(While I realize these comments are pointed at revealing how hypocritical PCC is, perhaps it would be better simply to let the facts rest without editorial.)

  • You may not wipe "boogers" on the wall. This is being cracked down on.

(This is the case at every college and University I have ever visited, attended, or worked at. The only differene is that anywhere else, they'd make you pay for a new paint job.)

  • The Publishers Clearing House contest application has a sticker for Playboy and is not allowed.

(This is not a regulation.)

  • You may recieve demerits for having your radio tuned to a "non-passing" radio station, even if you have not touched the dial since you were home.

(Again, please no editorial. This entry sounds really whiny.)

Additionally, I am a current student at PCC and the following are not rules I have ever encountered. If they were your personal experience, then someone was probably on your case.

  • Laugh too loud

(This past semester, one guy couldn't control himself several times after jokes in chapel. Nothing bad happened to him... everyone just smiled.)

  • You may not sing "too loud" during prayer group.

(My prayer groups in the past years have sung loudly enough to be heard down another wing, and the most that's happened is the floor leader comes in to sing with us.)

  • Siblings of the opposite sex should not interact in unchaperoned areas to abstain from the "appearance of evil."

(Definitely not true -- I've hugged and kissed my sister plenty of times in public with residence managers right there.)


One more thing -- I know it can be challenging to keep the list parallel, but please try to start with a strong verb and mimick the overall structure for readability.

---Masyukun 0:53, 14 Jun 2005 (EST)

    • The ones that really are regulations should be added anyway (see Bob Jones University, which has quite a long list of the school's regulations right there in the article). --Idont Havaname 14:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Just because those things got by at your school doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. The rulebook for PCC says that those rules are in effect.
    • We definitely do need the list to stay parallel; since I had A Beka grammar through junior high and high school, bad parallelism drives me crazy. :-D I'd suggest just going back to the rulebook and copying and pasting the rules word for word as is done in the BJU article. (We should, of course, cite the handbook; if somebody has the most recent handbook, then that would be ideal.) That seems much cleaner, and I think it makes the article less vulnerable to future editors' changing them away from their correct meaning just because our interpretations sounded unclear. --Idont Havaname 21:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You're definitely right about citing the handbook: that would be the best. However, do you think we would run into a copyright violation if we did that? I think I left my handbook from this past semester at school in storage, though. Anyone else have theirs handy? --Masyukun 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (EST)
      • I doubt it's copyvio. I've asked about that over at Talk:Bob Jones University, though. --Idont Havaname 19:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw the question on Talk:Bob Jones University and am responding as a consequence. Copying short sections of the rulebook for purposes of comment is allowed under the "fair use" exemption to the copyright laws, in my non-lawyerly opinion. We are not plagiarizing by calling it our own work, nor are we trying to promote Wikipedia as an alternate source of these rules. Parts of the rulebook are only being copied in order to discuss them and to make comments on them. That seems acceptable. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem, I'm the one that added the rules to Bob Jones's page and I copied them directly off the website. There's absolutely no point to rewriting them when it's going to say the same exact thing. If need be, just list a link to the page in which they are from. The copyright stuff on Wikipedia is ridiculous sometimes :) - Iamblueman4

The "Demerits" sections seems awfully long. Can't we just summarize the material and give a couple of examples? -Willmcw 18:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


The demerits section is already a summary of a much longer list. Iamblueman4 28 June 2005 04:50 (UTC)


To the person who keeps editing the demerits section, please offer a good reason for taking it out. I will continue to put it up until you do. The demerits would be of interest to someone looking for info on PCC. The list I included is already a summary and is not too long. Before you revert again, make sure to join the discussion here. Thanks! Iamblueman4 28 June 2005 22:19 (UTC)

I believe that putting the lengthy, detailed list of demerits after having already put a summarizing list of rules up is redundant. I believe that the examples needed are already there, and if needed, we can put the severity of punishment along those already listed. Eriknikel 29 June 2005 00:32 (UTC)

It is not redundant. The demerits section is useful because it shows the severity of breaking certain rules. It also shows PCC's stance on certain things...for example: they view meeting up with members of the opposite sex (unapproved meeting) off campus to be just as bad as practicing witchcraft. Both actions will get you 150 demerits which will result in being kicked out. Putting the severity of each punishment next to each rule would be dumb because it would make it harder on the reader. Listing the demerits by the amount recieved for each action is a much better way to go about it. I dont see what the hangup is with posting the demerits, its really quite simple. I listed the rules...and now I'm listing the consequences for breaking them. It just so happens that it takes up a lot of space since PCC has like 20 million rules.

Notable professors

None of the teaching staff listed seems to be notable. What is the criteria? -Willmcw 03:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

None of those listed are notable, except in the eyes of the person adding them, I suppose. The college does have notable faculty (Jaffee, Gibbs, and others), but these are not among them.
I couldn't find a list of faculty on the official website. -Willmcw 18:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I checked the website too and I was unable to find information on any faculty. The president of the university doesn't even have a biography on there. Iamblueman4

I don't see any informaiton on the accreditation or financial status of the college. Is is a non-profit or is it for-profit? -Willmcw 04:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
From what I can tell, it is unaccredited by any agency, and it is a for-profit corporation. -Willmcw 20:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any information on accreditation either, I'll look some more but I don't think the university is.
I saw several places where they say their lack of accreditation gives them the flexibity to ffer the best education. It is not in the Council for Higher Education Accreditation database.[1] I think that status is notable enough to go in the introduction. The tax article that I linked (and haven't had a chance to read carefully) makes it appear to be a regular business. Most non-profit organizations announce their status. (on the other hand, most colleges list their faculty.) -Willmcw 21:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The college is non-profit. Some of its subsidiaries (most notably, A Beka Book) are for profit companies.

Actually, the college began as non-profit with tax exemption, but lost that status I believe in the mid-1990's. I don't recall the exact year, but they paid $40 million in back taxes. *This information is from an article by Dr. Kent Hovind, who wrote it as a result of dispute between PCC and his own ministry, Dinosaur Adventure Land and related extensions.
On the website A Beka Book is called "an affiliate", and there's no description at all of the relationship to WPCS "the flagship of the Rejoice Broadcast Network". The A Beka Academy, "a ministry of Pensacola Christian College, is an outreach of Pensacola Christian," according to the site but it also appears to be a major textbook/software publishing enterprise. http://www.pcci.edu/GeneralInfo/TheRecord.html So is the college "owned" by its board of trustees, who then also own the for-profit businesses, with the profit going to the college? -Willmcw 22:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

A Guidestar.org search shows numerous non-profit organizations under this company's umbrella (A Beka Academy, A Beka Foundation, Pensacola Christian College, Youth Outreach Ministry). A Beka Book generates significant profits and has various endowments and scholarship programs for the college

Reading 990s - what a great way to spend a Friday night. The College seems to have a large endowment ($21 million income versus $47 million in tuition and other receipts) and makes small grants ($320k total) to a number of other Christian colleges. Hardin makes $149k from the college, and probably something from some of the other enterprises too. The college is tax-exempt, and there's a list of affiliates with their status (4 exempt, 4 non-exempt). I haven't seen any "red flags", though I'm not an accountant. The biggest discrepancy seemed to be that they indicate they practice racial non-discrimination and publicize their non-discrimination policy on their materials, but it isn't on the website. Probably all we need to say is that "PCC is affiliated with some related tax-exempt ministries, schools, and non-exempt businesses," and then list them. I think we should also report the tax thing, which might be another sentence. -Willmcw 04:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

New section

I think that since we are not going to have any biographical notes about the college's teachers, we might as well not put them up, especially since they really are not that noteable. Also, I believe that putting up the demerit policies only detracts from the school. I think those should be private. Just as we do not have other school's disciplinary systems lined out, we should not have theirs. We all understand this institution is a very conservative, strict place.Flgook 03:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference - PCC is as famous for its discipline system as anything else, and it was the apparent reason for the "Student Voice" newsletter. I think it is worth boiling down the demerits to a paragraph. The demerit system is traditional in certain school settings, but this is an international encyclopedia and we need to explain some things that might seem obvious. Also, a few examples could illustrate the relative importance of different offenses. But the current list is unnecessarily long- the point of an encyclopedia is to summarize. Let me see if I can help it. I agree about the faculty. They aren't even mentioned on the PCC website. The bios are unverifiable. Chers, -Willmcw 06:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I would certainly want to highlight some of the demerits that result in expulsion. Just merely saying that if you get 150 demerits, then you're expelled, does not provide any sense of scale (as far as which acts earn high or low numbers of demerits), which was why I was opposed to deleting demerits entirely. There's a nice link off of the "libertarian perspectives" article (a very good article, btw) where hundreds of alumni detail their experiences at PCC, and one person mentions that one of her friends was expelled for hugging his girlfriend at a mall. Granted, "through the grapevine" knowledge like that is not encyclopedic, but stuff like "visiting in a residence room or motel room of the opposite sex gets you expelled automatically" is. (I for one, attend a public university and had to go to a girl's dorm suite to rehearse a presentation for a class; we didn't do anything that wasn't related to that coursework, and there were other people around, but my just going to the dorm room would've gotten me expelled at PCC!) Also, I think it's interesting that participating in the Student Voice, gambling, duplicating keys, and having sex gets you expelled, but things like having a gun on campus and watching pr0n do not. It's also worth noting that the outline of the demerit system doesn't appear to be in any of the ext links (or at least not the link to the handbook). --Idont Havaname 18:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is there a way that we could integrate the rules and the penalties? Maybe say that: "A, B, and C are minor infractions and would typically result in being "campused" for a week, while X, Y, and Z can result in immediate expulsion." -Willmcw 23:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the above ideas are very good. Placing the entire rulebook onto this article intended to summarize the school makes it unnecessarily long. I believe that Willmcw has a point with just listing the extreme or particularly unusual rules. While most of the rules are unusual, we don't have room in a summary article to mess with all of this. Plus, we already have a list of some of their extreme rules. Flgook 02:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Pensacola offers over 60 programs of study and has proven itself to be an institution of higher learning with a quality education. Graduates from PCC work for companies such as Ernst & Young, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Merck, as well as several other notable companies. The graduates of the nursing program there are well sought after and are is rated in the top 10 in nursing programs in the state of Florida.

Is the fact that some alumni work for big corporations really notable? "Proven itself to be an institution of higher learning with a quality education" and "graduates of the nursing program are well sought after" are both POV statements that would requires sources. -Willmcw 06:21, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

    • Nope, not notable. Don't include any alumni that the common person has not heard of, or who wouldn't survive WP:VfD if you wrote an article on them. Take a look at University of Maryland for criteria on notable alumni; even though I think that that article's writers were not stringent enough, it's at least a good starting point. Just having a job with a big company is a far cry from being an executive of a big company (or a congressman, or major-league professional athlete, etc.). --Idont Havaname 18:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Alumni of just about any university often go to work for big corporations, unless it is a pretty bad one. I've been drawing up alumni lists for my area, and I've generally been leaving it to just those who already have articles in Wikipedia - or prominent academics who don't but really should have articles. Your changes to the paragraph above make a lot of sense, too - it'd be nice to see completely neutral articles on this and Bob Jones University. Ambi 29 June 2005 02:23 (UTC)

I haven't found the source for the assertion that the nursing program in rated among the top ten in the state. Does anyone know where that came from? -Willmcw June 29, 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Many changes

Whew - hard to keep up with all of these changes. I don't think we've reached a consensus on the rules and pubishment issue and we should try, since that section seems to keep reverting. An editor has created a new article for the "Student Voice" and moved much of the info about it there. However I don't think that newsletter is notable enough to have a separate article. It makes more sense just to keep it as part of this article. Regarding the school's theology, we should get it right if we can. Since it is not under the auspices of a major branch its theology is unique. Any other issues? -Willmcw June 29, 2005 17:41 (UTC)

How about just leave it as a link so people don't feel the urge to insert incorrect information? You guys are way overthinking this thing. -user:Shawn fard

Also, the PCC's local church, Campus Church, and their lower school, Pensacola Christian Academy, don't seem notable or otherwise worth having articles of their own either. Why not include those here too? -Willmcw June 29, 2005 17:49 (UTC)


Because if you separate the controversial stuff into separate pages, you might actually have a chance at the main page being left alone for more than five minutes. Its way too bulky and hard to read with everything on the main page. I would think that would be obvious unless your main point is to discredit the college with information overload. There are so many issues that if you spread the pages out where the search engines can find them you will increase traffic to whatever veiwpoint you seem to have because there will be better links to it. -user:Shawn fard

    • Hi Shawn, welcome to our discussion. Unfortunately, articles on that type of stuff rarely survive votes for deletion, because very few of the editors there are in favor of including minor information about universities in their own articles. I'd venture to guess that most of these articles being added (Campus Church, Pensacola Christian Academy, Jim Schettler, Rejoice in the Lord, etc) are about things that are not notable enough to have any hope of surviving VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents is also worth reading). Pensacola Christian College Demerit System is on VfD already, and I'd suggest merging it (and all the others) back here and speedy deleting them. Please don't bug the VfD editors (me included, and Willmcw is on there quite a bit himself)... we've gone from having 50 nominations a day for VfD in January to about 100-125 of them a day now, which is a crushing load of stuff for them to plow through. Please save them the trouble. Sorry if it seems harsh, but it's cleaner to just include stuff in the main article if a separate article on them can't get longer than more than a few sentences without going into nonencyclopedic amounts of detail. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)
Separating contoversial material is not the right way to proceed. The answer is to deal with the material in one place in order to create a comprehensive article. Anyway, the Campus Church isn't controversial. The aim is not to increase Google hits, but to write the best articles that we can. "Spreading them out" simply means taking one good article and making a bunch of less-helpful articles. This article is still far shorter than those for many other colleges, so its length is not a problem. -Willmcw June 29, 2005 19:37 (UTC)
How is it the best article you can write if it is one garbled mess? There is much that can be written on the sub categories of Campus Church, their seminary, etc. Just because there is one sentence in there now doesn't mean there couldn't be a lot more useful information. Is there a way to lock the information to keep the numerous idiots out there from messing with it. Some of my first changes I did "for fun" just to see what would happen. Then I tried to do something useful. How is there really anyway to make this useful information without a bunch of stubborn people going back and forth just because they can? It seems kind of pointless and a huge waste of time. -user:Shawn fard
The last edit seems to be the best one. The controversial topics are retained, but without too much detail. I do think the "Text Issue" probably needs to be developed more because that is probably what PCC is most famous for, aside from A Beka Book. Also, the Campus Church is controversial, but probably not of interest to anyone outside of fundamentalism. I'm also a little concerned about passing off PCCBoard as some sort of offical or approved board. Ryan DeBarr
The best way to proceed is not to call your fellow editors "idiots." WP:No personal attacks. If you want to see your changes retained you need to convince the "stubborn editors" of their value. If there is notable information about these various components and people, then we can always add it here until it's necessary to split them off. At present they are all candidates for deletion. -Willmcw June 29, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
I wasn't referencing fellow editors as idiots. I was speaking of random guests off the internet whose aim is to continually ruin the entry with incorrect and garbled information. Nice way to read into my post though. However, this is why the statement of faith is worthless by being here. It is too easy of a target. -user:Shawn fard
Fellow editors, random guests: all the same thing. Anyone who contributes positively is welcome. Folks who remove sourced information from the encyclopedia tend to be less welcome. As with trees, we judge editors by what they produce. Please check your user talk page, User talk:Shawn fard, where I've posted a list of help files and policies. Thanks, -Willmcw June 29, 2005 22:12 (UTC)
The editing and re-editing really needs to stop. It's completely out of hand. I'll voice my opinion AGAINST listing the rules in the article. I think a mere link will suffice. It's too cluttered, IMO. But I do think that Shawn fard has a point. Some of the edits have added incorrect or useless information. Others have shown blatant bias. I've never contributed anything to Wikipedia before, and am not fully aware of all the policies and standards. So I'll just say my two cents and let y'all sort it out. User:RyanDeBarr:Ryan DeBarr

Text issue vs. Regulations: What's more important?

This is in reply to Ryan DeBarr's post on the previous heading; I've split it into a new topic because this page has gotten swamped with comments recently. How is the text issue what PCC is most famous for? Are you a student there? When my friends and I were in a homeschoolers' association with several hundred members, PCC representatives visited us and gave us all of the customary promotional material (videos, speeches, etc.). And as prospective students, it was the rules that turned us off the most about the school. The Student Voice and most of the student reviews linked off from the "libertarian perspectives" article cite rules more than the text issue. It's definitely necessary to include the rules here in the article, not as an offsite link, and in a neutral manner, unlike what the other sites do; editors at the Bob Jones University article have done the same. Nevertheless, I do encourage further development on the text issue. Don't be afraid of making the article too long. In my opinion, "too long" does not exist. :-) And we have articles here with much more detailed information on much less important/notable/encyclopedic topics than universities. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)

I am a 2001 graduate of the Bible program. I am the owner of PCCBOARD.COM. I am currently attending The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The text issue was a very big deal. Many fundamentalists, especially in the north, view PCC very negatively because of its "King James Only" stance. Outside of fundamentalism, PCC is really only known for A Beka and its advocacy of the KJV. If you visit the Seminary's website, you'll see that the seal of the seminary contains "King James Only" rhetoric. I added the text issue stuff, but I do not know if I am the one who should develop it. I'm also not sure how much more it can be developed without adding in POV stuff. RyanDeBarr


Both Ryan and I actually attended PCC. I am an alumni and I think Ryan is as well. Therefore we are both in a good position to contribute useful first-hand information for this topic. We aren't mere bystanders. We are interested in contributing fair and balanced information if possible and to do that will require an organized hierarchy of the data that is entered. If you prefer that we add it and you split it when it does get long, we can do that but it will severely impact the readability of the information. Some of the new subtopics were created in immediate advance of the insertion of text but since it appears that there are less than helpful editors here, I fail to see the reason to put forth the effort to enhance these entries. I get the feeling that the existing editors do not have firsthand experience with this institution and may be hindering the development of an accurate entry. Shawn fard 29 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)
It's important to include the regulations in this article. An article can't be "too long" unless it is filled with pointless information. By arranging things in the proper category, Wikipedia users can use the small navigation menu at the top of the article and click on what they wish (if they feel the article is too long). I can't help feeling that since you were students at PCC you're going to want to take off the rules because it makes your school look bad. Remember that this site is NPOV and that isn't allowed. From my side, even though I strongly dislike the school for the bad image it gives Christianity, putting the rules and demerits does not violate the NPOV because they are there to merely educate people seeking information on PCC. Feel free to contribute information about the school to the article (as it needs it), but stay away from letting your point of view determine how you edit the article. Thanks! Iamblueman4 29 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not against a fair display of the regulations. If you'll notice, I'm not the one deleting them every hour. I am merely interested in displaying them in a readable fashion on a sub-page so that more content can be added. As for my time there, I did have a pretty good experience myself. I didn't get kicked out and I'm not bitter about them. However, I don't agree with everything they do. So what? I'm probably about as neutral of a person as you can find. Shawn fard 29 June 2005 22:46 (UTC)


I believe that stating all the demeritable offenses shows a negative POV. It is obviously not a positive one. I am sure that Iamblueman4 has good intentions of informing the public, but please remember this is a summary, the summary of the rules left on the article should be sufficient. I believe that the intervention of an editor's opinion in this might also help the matter.Eriknikel 29 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)
See who keeps changing it? At least having a sub-page keeps the opinions confined. Shawn fard 29 June 2005 22:46 (UTC)
I think the summary is very biased. Some of the rules, like not opening a window, sound totalitarian, but are actually very common across colleges and office buildings because of the way open windows mess up HVAC controls. I believe all we need is statement to the effect that their rules are seen as excessive by some, and a link to the rule book. RyanDeBarr
Obviously the best choice. Just like the Articles of Faith thing. This should just be a link to a more authoritative first hand source instead of re-posting and arguing over information that anyone can change to fit their own views. Shawn fard 29 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)

Please read "wikipedia:no original research. First-hand knowledge should not be relied up on for encyclopedia entries. On the of the basic rules of Wikipedia is to cite your sources. Everything we write needs to be verifiable by other editors. Please also read NPOV, which is our core principle. We're not here to say good or bad things about the subject, only to summarize in an NPOV manner the verifiable sources, be they good, bad, or neutral. In this matter, apparently both the scriptural interpretation issue and the regulations issue seem to be important. As I understand it, this is not a complete list of rules and demerits, but rather a condensed list. I'm sure we can condiense it further. However, we are a long way from having an excessively long article. (if links to outside sources were sufficient we could get rid of the article entirely and just link to the PCC site and a couple few others. We want to summarize important information here. The links are just for further reading.) Thanks, June 29, 2005 23:03 (UTC)

If we are going to list offenses, then we should just post the Demerit list directly from the rulebook and not "summarize" them. The summaries are all baised against PCC. And I say that as a person who has been disowned by the college for running a bulletin board deemed critical of them.
You mean the current demerits list is biased against PCC? How so? Now that I compare the list here with the online rule handbook it appears that most of them are here. I think we could still cut it down by half at least while adding more about the general discipline procedures (DC, campusing, socialing). Shortening the list is much better than deleting it. -Willmcw June 29, 2005 23:18 (UTC)
I think the list taken directly out of the rulebook is what should be posted. My revision as of 23:07, 29 June, is what I think should be there. The whole "students are informed of the rules ahead of time" is a matter of great debate, and it's not possible to do the topic justice in a few lines. Just post the demeritable infractions summary. All the personalized summaries I've seen are biased against PCC.RyanDeBarr
Alright, if it keeps the peace then I'm willing to let the whole demerits list stay. Wikilove, -Willmcw June 29, 2005 23:36 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

I looked up the notable alumni. I found Cathy McMorris, her web site is [[2]]. I did not find anything yet on April Wood. Eriknikel 30 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)

  • Here is a link for Wood. There's no mention of PCC, though. This PDF mentions that Wood graduated from PCC and went to Regent. McMorris has an article on here, so I linked it up with your listing. --Idont Havaname 30 June 2005 04:25 (UTC)

Recent wording changes

I'd have to disagree with the latest wording changes by Macrakis who put as the edit summary: (reduce POV: "Christian" is not a synonym for "fundamentalist Christian"). Does this school or its programs call themselves fundamentalist? I don't see a reference to it on their site or in other reviews of the university. Unless a source can be found, labelling them further doesn't appear to serve any purpose, Christian covers the entire faith and is a more general term. I have removed the new term pending verification. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your logic, and we should try to use the terms the people use to describe themselves (as long as they are not delusional). However PCC does not accept Christians of all denominations. They have a very specific view of Christianity, which many describe as fundamentalist. It is not without reason - biblical inerrancy is one of PCC's key tenets, shared by fundamentalists. They are called "fundamentalist" by many people (over 900 hits on Google). Here are some: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9](calls it "ultra-fundamentalist"), etc. On that basis, I'm going to reinstate the "fundamentalist" label. If you can find a more exact term that'd be even better. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Though they don't use the word "fundamentalist", their Articles of Faith put them squarely in the Christian Fundamentalism category. I seriously doubt that any Catholic, Orthodox, Congregationalist, Episcopalian, or Quaker schools use the Beka books, for example. --Macrakis 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about that, while they certainly wouldn't use their bibical studies books they could quite possibly use books from subject areas where there wouldn't be content that conflicts with them (such as history, english, maths, etc...). I do know of various christian schools that would only use some of a publishers textbooks because they don't agree with the rest and hence pick and choose which ones they take. Mathmo 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links; unfortunately, I know very little about the books myself. In a perfect world, we'd have a proper name for this belief as opposed to just an adjective, but looks like this is as close a term as it comes. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm a 2001 one graduate of their Bible department. They're more fundamental than Falwell. They're very simliar to Bob Jones University.RyanDeBarr

More websites to learn about pensacola christian college

www.pccboard.com www.pensacolachristiancollege.com (No longer updated) --69.49.154.20 23:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Student body

I see that the size of the student body has been changing between 5,000 and 6,000. Are there sources for any of those figures? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Yeah, some of my friends go there. Nik 18:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So your friends are the source? -Willmcw 02:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I would imagine that they know how many students are there. Nik 13:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
A source like that does not meet the standard of wikipedia:verifiability. -Willmcw 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I've looked through several pages of Google results today, and I haven't found a definite figure. I couldn't find PCC on US News & World Report's college rankings list. I could find a listing on CollegeNet that says 3700 (undergraduates) and a blog entry from this past June that says 4700. So 5000 sounds more accurate to me than 6000. If, say, you have 25% freshmen, 25% sophomores, etc., then that's about 1250 students in each graduating class. If it went up to 6000 for this year, that might mean that they have over 2000 freshmen this year, which is quite a jump given the size of the school's student body. If anyone has more definite information, feel free to add it. --Idont Havaname 20:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The ideal source would be the college itself.. DDerby(talk) 01:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


PCC's undergraduate student body is around 4,500. The Crowne Center would be full at chapel if we had 6,000 undergrads.

KJV translation

What's the reason for doubting this source? -Willmcw 02:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked on the web site that it came from and couldn't find anything. Nik 13:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "couldn't find anything?" How does that affect the accuracy of the material? -Willmcw 19:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Meaning that the document on the stated website sources itself as being on the web site of Bob Jones, and I looked and didn't find anything; hence, it could be false. Nik 23:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Websites remove information all of the time, so the lack of a particular document on a page doesn't mean that it never existed. -Willmcw 00:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Gross Discrepancies

I find this article to contain discrepancies with what actually goes on within the campus of PCC. I am currently a junior there, and there are things said here that certainly do not happen. I will certainly protest these inconsistencies, and will edit them myself. Pensacolaboy 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What errors are you discrepancies are you referring to? -Willmcw 06:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
While I realize that you probably believe I am biased, let me first state, that I have an experienced view of the school and its rules. First of all as a student, second of all, I have been kicked out, so I also do have a bit of anymosity towards the school. One of the first things that I think is the listing of an outdated site to give relevant information about the school. While I have visited and do understand some of the views held there, there are also a number that are now unneccessary for anyone that would like recent information about the school. This should be pronounced more as a historical criticism than a contemporary one. There are some other things, but I believe that most of the fine editors involved in this article really know nothing about the school other than what is available on the web. Please understand my frustration with this matter. I will however, leave open any editorial changes that I make for discussion, rather than just robotically changing back and forth without any elaboration. Pensacolaboy 17:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You're referring to the Student Voice, right? The links are there to clue the readers in on some of the controversies in the school's history. I agree with you that the article should take note of which are historical rather than current. I've just made a note of that in the article while I'm thinking of it. Thanks for bringing that up. Unfortunately, the Rules Compendium link that I put in the article a while ago is the most current online listing I can find of a set of rules, since the school doesn't seem to make any of their handbooks available. --Idont Havaname 20:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
You didn't say which website you are referring to. It'd help if you can be more specific. Just because a website is outdated doesn't mean that it is no longer relevant. We are interested in both history and the present. Yes, for those of us who haven't attended the web is a chief source of info. However, first-hand knowledge is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Everything we write should be verifiable by other editors. Hence, the web serves as a reasonable source. If you have better sources then please share them with us. Thank, -Willmcw 20:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The section now makes it clear that it is discussing recent history, thanks to User:Idont havaname. Are there any other specific problems with the article? DDerby(talk) 02:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell link

This link seems to be more about libertarianism than about PCC. DDerby(talk) 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes and no. While it is about libertarianism, it also seems to be a link in favor of PCC. It seems to really weigh the pros and cons well. It points out that a government run in the PCC fashion in terms of the rules would likely not do well, but it praises the school for not taking taxpayer subsidies, and it speaks rather well of the rules (using the golf course and baseball stadium analogies). The statement in the article, "PCC demonstrates precisely what private property owners can do to defend their principles and way of life in a free society", seems to really be praising PCC. The article on the whole tries to weigh the school's pros and cons. I'd say this is a good, intellectual piece of writing, and the article does well to keep the link. For, against, and neutral links should all be welcome here, as long as they are related to or discuss PCC. --Idont Havaname 00:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Other organizations

I'm afraid that the school has nothing to do with the Academy, the book publisher or the radio station - I think that this item should be discussed before putting it back on.Nik 02:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The abeka.com website, and that of Rejoice Radio (on campus), are copyright PCC. The campus church is may be primarily for students, but PCC's website mentions that "Faculty, staff, and their families—as well as many local townspeople—join the college students in services at Campus Church", so I'm not sure about the inclusion of that one. The academy, while it shares founders with PCC, doesn't seem to be closely affiliated per its website. DDerby(talk) 03:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
If these other enterprises are owned by PCC, then they should be listed here. The evidence abovce seems to show that they are owned and operated by PCC. -Willmcw 01:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Please see this webpage: http://www.pcci.edu/GeneralInfo/TheRecord.html. -Willmcw 01:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
And http://www.pcci.edu/CampusLife/SpiritualLife/. -Willmcw 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Based on this, I've re-added the section. DDerby(talk) 02:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

removed ext. link

I found another link to it and replaced it. -Willmcw 20:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Textus Receptus and the KJV

Supporting exclusive use of the King James Bible in English is sufficient to indicate support of the King-James-Only movement as defined in the article on the movement. The KJV-only movement should not be confused with Ruckmanism. The current wording in the section "the text issue" seems to make it clear that PCC does not support Ruckmanism. To quote the KJV-Onlyism article:

There are variations within the King-James-Only Movement. For example, the late John R. Rice took a position that only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are inspired scripture, and that all translations of those done in good faith are useful as scripture, but he expressed a preference toward the King James Version for aesthetic reasons. On the other extreme can be found the teachings of the controversial Baptist preacher Peter Ruckman, who believes that the King James translation constitutes an "advanced revelation" from God which is superior to even the oldest existing Greek and Hebrew texts.

DDerby(talk) 20:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


People seem to insist that PCC supports the King-James-Only Movement. Ask any Bible faculty, and they will tell you that they do not. Wiki's definition of King-James-Only Movement differs from what most consider it to be (at least that I've spoken with). PCC does not say that the KJV is the only Bible worth reading. They have never said anything against versions such as the Modern King James Version (which uses the same texts as the AV). They use the KJV because it uses the TR, and because it's the historically accepted version. Saying they are KJVO tends to say they reject all other versions. This is not true. So, quoting your first sentence, "Supporting exclusive use of the King James Bible in English is sufficient to indicate support of the King-James-Only Movement as defined in the article on the movement," PCC is then not KJVO, because they never take a stand to order exclusive use by students. They choose the KJV for chapel and church, and tell us which versions we should NOT use (any not using the TR), and why.

68.156.93.130, for most purposes, exclusive use of the TR is exclusive use of the KJV. The KJV-only article is based on the book by James White, who gave 5 degrees of KJV-onlyism; the stance that PCC holds is right in the middle of the list. However, since White basically defines KJV-onlyism, and there seems to be some debate on what constitutes the movement (the KJV-only article even notes that fact), I think it would be right to not place too much emphasis on his term. Therefore, I've deleted the controversial term, though preserving the link to the article. --DDerby-(talk) 03:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't go back and edit the article, but it was stated clearly in their videos that there could not be any variation between the translation and the source text. He then went on to say that any variation would be considered a faulty view of inspiration. This is a belief that is found exclusively in KJVO circles. While PCC has changed their position since then, they strongly held to that position for a number of years.

Let's Have Fun book

The A Beka kindergarten program includes some references to Let's Have Fun book. Does anyone know what this is? Joe Arnold, Woodlawn Presbyterian Christian Preschool. (804) 731-0909. josepharnold@netzero.net

Rules, again

Is it really necessary to include the list of Disciplinary actions or the demerit list for certain infractions in an educated discussion about a school? To me this almost comes across as bashing on the institution. If it is necessary, what is the purpose that posting this list serves? It's not historic, because it does not illustrate a historic aspect of the institution. I suppose it does provide fodder for those who want to deride Pensacola Christian College, but is that the purpose of this site? To give ammunition to detractors? If so, by not mention the rule about slurping Jell-O with a straw, the way students on institutional probation are forced to be shadowed by floor leaders, or the rule that movie soundtracks have to be at least 7 years old to pass music check.

If those indeed are rules then it would be worthwhile to include them. The reason why the rules are included is that they are unusual and are one of the things that make PCC unique. We've already discussed this matter at length and the consensus has been to include them. -Willmcw 00:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Whatever - it was your "consensus" that decided that.

Enrollment

Why does the enrollment keep changing? It just went from 4,500 undergrads to 5,500 undergrads. Where is your source for this information? --68.156.93.130 22:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Did some checking on this and found the college is listing 4,712 students in its own publication [10] (pdf file). Have changed enrollment figure to reflect this, as this appears to be the most recent published record (spring 2006). DavidGC 07:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Ivan

Is the material in the section on Hurricane Ivan really appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on a college? I'm wondering if the entire section should be scrapped. DavidGC 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Without more sourcing it really doesn't belong. -Will Beback 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm also curious if it would belong in an encyclopedia even with sourcing. It doesn't appear to me to be a pivotal moment in the history of the college, and I'm just not sure that a section devoted to Hurricane Ivan is appropriate for each institution that was affected by it, unless the institution was forced to close, relocate, or at least rebuild itself from wreckage. DavidGC 06:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It must be pivotal because the school suffered broken windows and Dr. Arlin Horton's house was damaged. Dr. Arlin Horton now lives on campus, presumably with Mrs. Dr. Horton and all the little Dr. Hortons. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I've scrapped the section and think it should be left out until a reasonable case can be made as to its importance in the history of the univsersity. The importance and relevance of the event was not clearly stated in the section. DavidGC 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Arlin Horton

The text consistently referred to Horton as "Dr. Arlin Horton" - which I'm sorry to say raises a red flag in my latterly sceptical mind, since the times I've seen obsessive use of the title "Dr." in articles recently have all been graduates of unaccredited institutions, generally being "Gastroturfed". Does anyone have a reliable bioig of Horton with the sources of his credentials? Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Optical Intercourse / Eye Babies

In light of the frequent edits made to remove or replace the portion on "optical intercourse," I'm including the relevant portion of the Chronicle article here for reference purposes. This article can be viewed without subscription here:[11]

"Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined for what is known on the campus as 'optical intercourse' — staring too intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also referred to as 'making eye babies.' While the rule does not appear in written form, most students interviewed for this article were familiar with the concept.
"As she tells it, Ms. Poirier was not gazing lovingly at her boyfriend; he had something in his eye. But officials didn’t buy her explanation, and she and her boyfriend were both 'socialed,' she says."
DavidGC 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely remember deans, chaps and other students poking fun at students engaged in "eye kissing;" however, I have never seen one instance of someone getting socialed for looking at someone. All students are familiar with "eye kissing." It is referenced in even sunday school messages. Just because you interview students that say they are familier with the concept of eye kissing, does not mean that they are evidence that you get in trouble for it. Now, I have seen people get in trouble for rubbing legs under a table while "eye kissing". I have also noticed that the "no touching" rule is not as strinct as most people say it is. Example: my friend was once slapped by his girl friend, and the chaperon just stood there laughing at him. He was never socialed for that. Perhaps there should be more interviews done with people that do not have some bitterness against the college, in order to prevent this wikipedia article from becoming another one-sided student voice. Regardless, I am removing the statement until there is more substantial evidence other than some girl that withdrew and a few people familiar with the concept of staring into a loved one's eyes. --Jspr 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than remove it, let's fix it. It sounds like the practice is discussed routinely and is discouraged. Even among Bible Colleges it appears to be unique to PCC. So let's just pull it back a notch. How about:
  • ..and even staring into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex, called "eye kissing", "optical intercourse", or "making eye babies", is discouraged by the administration.
Would that be more accurate? -Will Beback 05:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think this would be an accurate change (though I would remove the word "even" from the statement, since it tends to add a slight emotional connotation against the university practices mentioned). Even so, I'm not sure I agree with striking a verified, sourced statement based solely on personal testimony, as this seems to me to run contrary to WP. However, the statement as you've worded it is consistent with the referenced article, as diciplinary action is clearly one method for the administration to discourage something.DavidGC 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
As with any information, less specific assertions are more accurate. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I altered this slightly . . . while the administration does discourage the practice (whatever you want to call it), I've never heard of them referring to it by the "eye-baby"-related terms. Those seemed specifically the purview of students (i.e. making fun of roommates, etc.). So I left it at the NPOV "staring into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex". Sound good to all of you? --Sehr Gut 14:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually that would be rather problematic as wikipedia policy specifically forbids original research, and your comment appears to imply personal experience with the matter. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I was meaning it more in the interests of NPOV than anything. It just seems silly to put terms like "eye babies" in an encyclopedia article, especially since the source (Bartlett) was is so vague. He never cites any college officials as using the terms, but the way it was worded here sounded like those were "official" nomenclature. --Sehr Gut 03:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

History??

Unless the history major and its avoidance of certain time periods is a huge event, there is no need to include this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flgook (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

Under M:Inclusionism, interesting and unusual facts are included in articles by design. Having a college-level history major that ignores the preceding five billion years of history on the planet strikes me as being fairly unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that the historical focus mentioned in the article is very unusual from a cultural anthropological and specifically an archaeological perspective. --DavidGC 10:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pensacola_Christian_College/Archive_1&oldid=718719178"