|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bryan College article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
That is not the proper way to add a link to a web site. Hence, the revert. Rlquall 04:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
does this college teach evolution at this point? --18.104.22.168 21:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Bryan College's Department of Biology website states: "Our major objective is to provide strong and rigorous academic courses that are integrated with Biblical truth without compromising the content of our courses. We provide courses exploring various theories of evolution and creation in the course Origins and History of Life." So I guess they teach both creationism and evolution in the same course. I'd be very interested in getting a recording of one of that course's lectures.
- --Cohen the Bavarian 08:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I took a course at Bryan College called "Physical Origins" in which we learned about specific aspects of the Big Bang theory and plate tectonics. The various stages of the Big Bang were presented as fact, however the professor (Dr. Kurt Wise, who has since left the school) employed a delibrately schizophrenic teaching style, presenting material from what he considered a mainstream scientific perspective (not his own) for the first half of the semester. Wise was sort of famous on campus for this approach, but in our class (near the end of his time at the school) he seemed less interested in role-playing than in simply getting through the semester's material. I don't remember him announcing a switch from mainstream scientific theory to "Biblical Truth," although most of the students knew such a switch was to be expected at mid-semester. Biological questions like the origin of animals were treated in a companion course called "Biological Origins," which I did not experience. So yes, Bryan College taught evolution as of 2004, but not in a conventional way at all. I would be interested in helping with this aspect of the article. Does anyone have requests or advice as to what would be beneficial?
I could perform personal interviews to flesh out this information, but would those "sources" meet Wikipedia's verifyability and no original research policies? Daviddrp 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
NCCCA or NAIA
I believe you meant NCCAA. Bryan College competes in both the NCCAA an the NAIA conferences in different sports. I full update to Bryan College's Wikipedia page is coming soon. David Beisner (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a student at Bryan and working on updating the content to bring it all up to date and make it accurate. You'll see lots of edits over the next few weeks. David Beisner (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Requested peer audit assistance from rlquall to maintain neutrality of article. The following was posted on rlquall's talk page on 10 June 2008:
Hello rlquall, I'm a student at Bryan College and I'm trying to update the Bryan wiki page to make it more accurate and complete in its information. But
I want to make sure I don't appear biased toward the school in any of my postings. I saw that you have posted on the talk page for Bryan College and wondered if you had any interest in keeping an eye on my edits and letting me know via the talk page if I write anything that seems biased towards the college. My goal is to write a purely informational encyclopedia entry with good sources and references. Thanks! David Beisner (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Requested peer audit assistance from orlady to maintain neutrality of article. The following was posted on orlady's talk page on 10 June 2008:
Hi Orlady, do you have any interest in keeping an eye on the Bryan College page? I noticed that you're involved in pages in Tennessee, Chattanooga, and Dayton. I'm a student at Bryan and I'm trying to make the page for my school more accurate and up to date, but I want to be careful to maintain neutrality. I'm new to wikipedia and would love some help from someone who seems to be not only an old pro, but someone who is interested in the surrounding area. Any comments on neutrality issues or general content would be greatly appreciated! David Beisner (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the main issue is with the first paragraph. Stuff like "nationally competitive" and "best colleges" really shouldn't go in. Perhaps make the US News stuff into a Accolades or rankings section? That would work better and feel more neutral. OurGodlivz (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- While the lead section was the big tip-off, there are plenty of other issues here, including a full listing of majors and degree programs, which isn't at all necessary unless they're being advertised here. It also needs to be standardized and wikified with a real infobox. While I won't revert the removal of the ad tag, I won't do so mostly because I finally have time to make some adjustments myself. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Aepoutre, for your input... I'm new at Wikipedia still and don't have that much experience with it. I was out of the country and didn't see your previous comments until today. Would you be willing to give me some tips on doing infoboxes? I've been trying to learn about how to properly do these articles by reading the articles for other colleges and universities around the country and have not seen any infoboxes anywhere for major/minor listings, while I have seen a number of other college's and university's programs listed out like I did here on Bryan College's page. --David Beisner (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, since last fall when I did the initial work on this page, I have finished as a student here and am now in the employ of the college. That said, I will be doing little to no editing of the page in order to preserve NPOV and COI. I'll keep an eye on the page for any factual, grammatical, or other minor edits, but I will no longer be doing any major edit work to the page. David Beisner (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dave, no worries! I think that you can have a personal attachment and still do a good job if you put the interests of the encyclopedia first! You sound especially interested in hearing others' opinions, which is key. Check out the message I left on your talk page; I hope it helps (although it seems you may have already read some of it)! :) As for the programs listing: I know a lot of colleges have that, but they've actually been removed from articles I've written, and let's face it: really good wiki articles are few and far between. If you think about it, it really is 1) a list and 2) ad-like. There's really no reason to add all the "offerings" like that unless it's to "offer" them! That said, if there are particularly notable things, like the "Aspire program", those are good to keep (with sources and neutral tone, of course). Additionally, it's helpful to have general information, like whether a college has graduate degrees, a bent toward the sciences, &c., but not a list of everything available and certainly not minors. Thanks for inquiring as to my edits; I really respect that attitude, and aspire to do the same. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that I have edited primarily two items. For one added information from a Time news article that I was able to locate, giving us a good source for some of the purpose statements, and removed the column aspect for the presidents as at least of FF it was not rendering correctly. OurGodlivz (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's great. I was focusing mainly on the cleanup without doing any further research. HU, I removed the quote from the lead, as that section is more of a summary rather than a place to be quoting and citing. Had it needed to be kept, I would've named the reference for an "a" and a "b", but it's better situated in just the history section. Well done, keep checking things like the Times if you can. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Rated by User:DavidBeisner as GA-class, up from Stub-class, on 6 June 2008 (). No information on article summary page. Can anyone comment as to the ranking of this article as GA-class? Above comments show that User:DavidBeisner requested review from User:Rlquall and User:Orlady, but there were no responses () and User:DavidBeisner changed rating four days before requests. No formal nomination seems to have been made (), and a nomination must be made. It reads like an ad to me, and I'll be tagging it as such with Template:Advert. Since I'm challenging its WP:NPOV and we may have a case of WP:COI, its GA-class status might be revoked. In the meantime, I'll attempt some cleanup. --Aepoutre (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)