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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
If a single one of these colleges would consider itself Protestant but not necessarily evangelical, then we need to make the distinction that the CCCU exists for "Protestant, primarily evangelical," Christian colleges. Either way, I wouldn't consider it terribly redundant to use both terms. If it helps to clarify the wording, and perhaps a slight distinction, then it improves Wikipedia. Conciseness is not the primary purpose here, but clarity. I'd like to stop undoing edits and seeing mine likewise undone, and find out what the general consensus is. That's far more in the spirit of this project than the singular opinions of either myself or my colleague! --Aepoutre (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem discussing it. Clearly you are not familiar with the CCCU or evangelicalism, so I will explain it. The CCCU is specifically meant for schools that are clearly "Christ-centered" and evangelical, rather than "Christian" in name only, as many institutions such as Texas Christian University are. In order to maintain membership in the CCCU, strict criteria must be met that prove that the institution is clearly "Christ-centered," such as required chapel attendance, requiring faculty and students to live committed Christian lifestyles, and courses taught with a Christian worldview, which are all exclusive hallmarks of evangelical schools (this is why there are only about 100 members). In the CCCU, there are definitely variations within the overall schema of evangelicalism, but it is clear that every member institution would define itself as evangelical. It's not a major deal whether the term Protestant is included in the article, but anyone familiar with the CCCU would realize that it is indeed redundant. Manutdglory (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a faculty member at Messiah College, a CCCU institution which does not define itself as evangelical. It does not define itself as protestant either. The lion's share of the students and faculty are evangelicals, but this is not required or institutionally supported. (In fact the institution is enthusiastic about recruitment of more "diverse" (Christian, but not narrowly evangelical) theological perspectives.) And in case you'll be quick to claim otherwise, I am familiar with the CCCU and evangelicalism. Staecker (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I am also an alumnus and have been on staff at a college 1) supported by an evangelical denomination and 2) a member of the CCCU. The issue here is not familiarity but accuracy, though I will attempt to not take umbrage at your erroneous assumption. It seems clear, especially after having heard from Staeckler, that the distinction is necessary in the introductory paragraph. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Reverted edits by User:Stu_pendousmat. I'm not entirely opposed to the principle of the matter, but there are two issues here: 1) The others on this page are full city and state links, and 2) seems user changed link not out of a desire to standardise or improve, but because of a personal connexion with Moncton. There was no change for Dallas, Texas, which redirects to Dallas. To change Moncton without any attention to others doesn't seem about "avoiding redirects" so much as "avoiding redirect to Moncton". That said, Stu_pendousmat, if you can find the policy to which you apparently refer, but provide no reference, I'll not press the issue. However, I'd still encourage you to change the rest of the links by avoiding redirects and creating piped links, for the sake of improving Wikiepedia, by standarising what you've de-standardised. :) Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)