Talk:Belmont Abbey College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / North Carolina (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Cleanup/Copywrite issues[edit]

I have marked this article for cleanup, because boy, howdy, does it ever need it. Microtonal 29 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)

  • Actually, before the cleaning begins, it looks like this page might be a great big copyright violation. I Googled a few random lines in it and found large portions or text copied directly from [1], [2], and [3]. There are probably more. In a couple days, I'll list this on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and give it the tag and all... but I thought I'd open the floor for anyone who wanted to rewrite the article before then or come up with some sort of defense. Anyone? NymphadoraTonks 29 June 2005 07:23 (UTC)
    • I've already added it. There's little point in discussing this as the copyright violations are blatantly staring you in the face --Vanguard 29 June 2005 19:42 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Thanks for that. I've never listed a copyright violation before, so I didn't want to jump the gun. But I'm starting to see how it works. --NymphadoraTonks 29 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)
        • Good catch on the copyright stuff. I didn't even think to check for it. I might write a new article tonight, since I don't really have anything else important to do. Microtonal 29 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
          • No problem NymphadoraTonks, good call on collecting the sites in the first place, I only found the one. --Vanguard 1 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

Belmont Abbey College/Temp[edit]

OK, I've put up a temp article. I took most of the stub that was there before the anonymous user uploaded all the CR-questionable stuff, and added a taxobox and some info that I found here. I have an image of the school logo (taken from the just linked website), but I am unsure of its CR status, so I haven't uploaded it or image-linked it into the taxobox. Microtonal 30 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)

Hi! I work at the college, I saw the uploaded content and it was on my to do list of something to straighten up!(all jumble-ly and all) lol. We have recently changed logos and I will be happy to supply the site with the proper image. Also since I am aware of BAC being on this site I will be most happy to keep an eye on the page (although I doubt, at least hope, no one woulod put a disparaging remark up!)

For what it's worth, the Sigma Alpha on Campus is not the same as the Agricultural society - there should probably be a disambiguation page for it -- the Sigma Alpha here is a local fraternity with no national ties.

-- Belmont Abbey College Student

Also as a Belmont Abbey College student I will watch this page and its talk page to help fill in any information needed or requested (or even help to confirm the information). -- Simcop2387 04:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Been on my watch for qutie a while and I go here too :). Nice changes. Chris M. 05:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call the Basilica a home for the Roman Catholic Congregation that worships there. As a Monestary, there is no parish that calls the Basilica. Mass is offered, but even if no one showed up, there'd still be Mass. The parish down the street (Queen of the Apostles) is the parish for people in the area -- the ones that belong to a parish.


I added a couple pictures I took to spruce the page up, and added in the college's Latin motto. Hope that's alright.

-- -- Charlie 28 November 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

Belmont_Abbey_College#Faculty_health_care_coverage[edit]

I just added this section, with appropriate references, and I was looking for some peer review. Is there a better section for it to go under in the article? Feel free to fix grammar mistakes of course as well. Chris M. (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks to long and excessive, unbalancing the article. Can it be trimmed? Or can the rest of the article be significantly expanded? See WP:UNDUE. I don't see a better place for it in the current article. GRBerry 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
With regards to the school this is one of the issues that has caused much of it's "attention". The reason this topic has an article is due to it being a college I believe. But recently the reason it has actually received attention in the press is due to this issue. While the issue may be given undue weight if we are looking at the entire scope of the current and past institution I don't believe it is undue weight when you examine what has caused the school to be "notable". It is notable because of this issue in many regards, not because of it's fraternities nor it's majors or sports teams.
Also, WP:UNDUE states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" I believe the fact that this issue brought the school to the attention of a huge portion of the catholic and non-catholic world means that it is highly significant to the subject. Also, "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" IN searching around a large amount of pages discuss BAC specifically because of this issue.
Sorry to be so long-winded, just trying to explain what I think clearly. If you think it should be shortened though we can look at it some. I just don't want to breach one part of WP:UNDUE (about equal weight to differing views on a topic) in order to keep the topic itself short. Thanks for bringing it up. Chris M. (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I came across this article after the post at ANI. I also think that the controversies section is given too much weight in the article. Overall, that involves a very small portion of the college's history or actions, yet it is the most well-developed section in the article. I think that if this section were trimmed (we don't need all the details, just an overview), OR the other sections were better-developed, there would be much less risk of people just blanking the controversy section. Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a very experienced editor, but I'd have to agree with Karanacs and with the earlier advice from GRBerry. Looking at the history, the article was around 13k in length when the 4k controversy section was added. That was already undue weight for an issue that arose and was settled in a few months of the ~130 year history of the college. I notice that half of the article was removed back in September for no apparent reason. This left the controversies section as nearly half of the remaining article. If the sections removed in September were restored and the controversy section cut to maybe 50-100 words, other editors might be much less likely to simply remove it.Celestra (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I just trimmed the section without realizing there was a discussion. I found the article well balanced and well-written, about as good a sub-article as I've seen. Just way too long and therefore WP:UNDUE. Also, we don't use names except for the U President and notables. Looking over (now!) what other editors have written above, I think I've answered most of them except (alas) it still needs further pruning. As one editor wrote, just one incident in long history. We do want to be encyclopedic and not like the media, exaggerating for the purpose of getting attention. Well written, though and therefore a little hard to prune.
Why don't one of you give it a whack. Not the editor who doesn't want to see it at all, though!  :) It needs to be there in some measured way. Mzybe a paragraph or two at most. Student7 (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments :). I like you're pruning. Though this story has popped up A LOT in recent news again. I'm not going to expand the section personally (because others thought it previously was too long), but consider me in support of an expansion for recent news if the discussion comes up. Chris M. (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Another important reference, if someone wants to add stuff from it: [4] Chris M. (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable Alumni[edit]

There has been some disagreement on this section with Sunset551 repeatedly removing the section and it being added back in by other users.

Sunset, in one of your edit summaries you said that the section as is, "does not meet Wikipedia's guidlines". Could you please explain which guideline it doesn't meet?

Also, if you could explain why you think a list that is probably not complete is worse then not having a list. It is unlikely we will always have that list perfectly up to date, and I hardly think it is useful to readers to have the list delete everytime there is a notable Alumni from BAC not present in the list. If there is such a person that is known explicitly, then that person should be added to improve the list.

I also hope everyone can assume good faith and not refer to other users edits as vandalism. Sunset, in case you are unaware, the edits that re-added that section were done by users utilizing software to identify common vandalism tactics (such as blanking a full section). So they might not have understood what you were doing because you didn't give an explanation originally, or on the talk page.

Thanks. Chris M. (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs expansion[edit]

This article has needed expansion for while. I added a section entitled "history" which I hope other users can expand on. I also uploaded a couple more pictures. I'll be working on this some over the summer. What ever happened to getting the Abbey seal for the article? Cajackson2009 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I expanded on the student life section, added several photos, created a "campus" section, put some information about scholarships and various other things on the page. Hoping this will lay the ground for some other students and faculty and contributors to work with. Cajackson2009 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Advert" issues[edit]

I noticed Team6and7 tagged the article for revision because the article appears to be "written like an advertisement." I'm still figuring Wikipedia out, and trying to be as faithful as I can to Wikipedia's standards. Already Student7 has been extremely helpful in editing some of the content I've added and offered me some friendly correction on using neutral and objective language. That said, as the article stands it appears rather unbiased to me - I'm having trouble seeing how it is written like an advertisement, I'd really appreciate some help in identifying and revising the problematic content. Thanks! --Cajackson2009 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Core curriculum revision[edit]

Students and faculty all received an email last evening noting that the Board of Trustees voted to put the college's revised curriculum into effect for the fall of 2011. The Board also voted to scrap majors in economics, computer studies, philosophy, and sociology as of June 3 2010. I want to add something to the article about this soon, but will probably need to wait until I get more sources (besides emails.) Let me know if anybody finds anything! --Cajackson2009 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)