Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Southern's status on Modernist - Fundamentalist continuum

I have started this section hoping to list all the verifiable citations which identify (identified) Southern Adventist University on the Modernist - Fundamentalist continuum.

The term Fundamentalist has historical roots in the early 1910s and 20s. It includes much that defines all of Adventism except perhaps the inerrancy of Scripture. Adventists part company with other "fundamentalists" in that many SDA's adhere to Thought Inspiration rather than Verbal Inspiration. Thus, the term "fundamentalist" loses its accuracy. Another label needs to be applied if we are going to apply labels at all. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not come across any Adventist Fundamentalist in its true sense, maybe conservative or Historic but not Fundamentalist. So I would take it out across the board as it does not apply, as I can call someone a 'Neo Conservative' but that doesnt make it true, although the quote may be allowed.Simbagraphix (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

School of Visual Art and Design

This section was originally tagged based on a faulty rendering of WP:SPS. Policy holds that self pub sources can speak about themselves. Any objections to removing the tags? Lionel (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

None from me. Nice someone else understands SPS... :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with tag removal for reasons stated. Kenatipo ^speak! 03:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NO! This section was NOT "tagged based on" ANY "rendering of WP:SPS" WHATSOEVER. I would suggest that Lionel read the bleeding tags before he advocates their removal. The section was tagged, using {{better source}}, for the preponderance of WP:PRIMARY source material employed in the section (in violation of WP:PSTS which clearly state that WP:SECONDARY sources should predominate). And as for the reflexive me-too-ism from RobertMfromLI & Kenatipo -- have a WP:TROUT. I would further note that two of the three remaining sources in that section are Adventist-affiliated (the third being for infamous plot description -- for whose relevance I never did receive an adequate explanation). There is therefore little to indicate that this school has any more prominence than any of the other 59 majors offered by the university, or why it should receive such a prominent write-up. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, apologies, but I thought this[1] applied, as has been discussed numerous times on BLPN, RfC and elsewhere in regards to using primary sources to cite actual quotations made. There's hardly any reflexive "me-too-ism" in remembering this debate having come up elsewhere numerous times, where it was deemed acceptable to use primary sources to cite actual statements by the subject. If there's been some new consensus in other "test cases" where this has been re-evaluated (in the opposite direction), I'd be more than glad to read up on them, if you can point them out to me (and will revise my opinion accordingly). Nonetheless, no "me-too" involved here. Simply been down this road before, multiple times. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, Robert. Kenatipo ^speak! 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There was also, in one such debate, an argument that self sourcing may actually be preferred on anything BLP or BLP-ish, because it prevented citing some secondary source who may have (as they often do) used a snippet of a statement in a fashion that puts it out of context. I will be honest though, in that particular case, even though the argument did make a bunch of sense (and was portrayed far better than I just did), I cannot remember what the final consensus was. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

RobertMfromLI:

The tag states: "^{[non-primary source needed]}"
The tag links to WP:PSTS
What possible reason then did you have to think that WP:SELFPUB applied?
Even if WP:SELFPUB did apply, it clearly requires that "the article is not based primarily on such sources"
This talkpage tends to be very long on 'I agree (with the other Adventist insiders)' comments, and very short on reasoned argumentation.
Local WP:CONSENSUS does not overrule policy. And where "actual statements by the subject" predominate, it violates WP:NPOV as well as WP:PSTS.
There is nothing even remotely "BLP or BLP-ish" about this topic -- and even with a BLP, we do not allow the topic's self-descriptions to predominate.

The gold-standard in Wikipedia articles is reliable coverage by independent sources. Yes, we allow a small amount that doesn't meet these standards to 'fill in the gaps' -- but we do not allow such material to predominate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One by one:

1. The tag states: "^{[non-primary source needed]}"

Which others are disputing is not appropriate for the content in question.

2. The tag links to WP:PSTS

Which would be irrelevant if above is true. If it is false, then you forget this part on PSTS:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. (such as a quote).

3. What possible reason then did you have to think that WP:SELFPUB applied?

Simply providing additional context; as it applies to using statements made by a LP cited in an article.

4. Even if WP:SELFPUB did apply, it clearly requires that "the article is not based primarily on such sources"

Agreed that the article is not based on such sources. But by article, it is referring to the Wikipedia article - not the article cited.

5. This talkpage tends to be very long on 'I agree (with the other Adventist insiders)' comments, and very short on reasoned argumentation.

That may perhaps be true, but as my edit history will attest to, I've got no horse in this race.

6. Local WP:CONSENSUS does not overrule policy. And where "actual statements by the subject" predominate, it violatesWP:NPOV as well as WP:PSTS.

Consensus formed at AN/I on interpretation and application of the policies and guidelines has indeed been applied multiple times. I believe you mistake my mention of such as referring to the specific cases involved - as opposed to referring to the consensus on what the policies and guidelines, in general, meant.

7. There is nothing even remotely "BLP or BLP-ish" about this topic -- and even with a BLP, we do not allow the topic's self-descriptions to predominate.

Any time an editor quotes someone (or portrays (in their own words) a statement attributed to someone), there are most definitely parts of the BLP policies and guidelines that apply.

Hope that explains where I am coming from. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The tags link to WP:NOR. Where is the "Original Research" in the sentences tagged? There isn't any. Colleges and universities are reliable sources for the information we are reporting in the tagged sentences. The tags are inappropriate and should be removed. Kenatipo ^speak! 05:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Including the one in the Archaeology section. Kenatipo ^speak! 05:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not disputing such, but (tomorrow, as I am going to bed soon) I think, for so many tags, I need to go through each one before I present an opinion on each. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst WP:NOR generally discusses original research, WP:PSTS specifically discusses the fact that WP:SECONDARY sources should predominate and that WP:PRIMARY sources need to be used with care -- which is, I believe, very relevant to the issue at hand.
As far as I know, WP:ANI is not a venue for resolving content disputes. In any case, lacking citation of specific discussions there, and their conclusions, I cannot know what they were and how they might (or might not) interpret or modify WP:PSTS.
I will continue to state (even if I am casting myself in the role of Cassandra or Jeremiah) that the level of third-party/WP:SECONDARY sourcing in this article is grossly substandard.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

From a quick look at the reflist, that I am in agreement with. I suspect we've got some citing work to do... possibly some article expansion as well to accurately portray anything else relevant that we find in the new sources. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

An article about a small, quiet, conservative Southern college that just goes about its business of educating its students every day is going to have a preponderance of Primary sources (the college itself) supporting it. When the local college gets its name in the newspaper, it's usually about something negative but not particularly relevant to the college's activities: a campus fire, a rape, a student demonstration or some faculty-administration controversy. Expecting the preponderance of sources to be secondary sources in this instance is just not realistic. So, the level of third-party/WP:SECONDARY sourcing in this article is NOT grossly substandard, it is to be expected, and the rules about the preponderance of the sourcing cannot be applied too strictly here. An insistence on lots of secondary sourcing (mostly of negative events) facilitates those who want to put negative items in the article. That being said, all who are interested in improving the article should continue to seek and add third party sources for the article. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No. If an article is about a (sufficiently) "small, quiet, conservative Southern college that just goes about its business of educating its students every day" that it does not get much WP:SECONDARY coverage, then the appropriate thing to do is to have a comparatively short article -- NOT an article bulked up by excessive and unbalanced self-description. The same points made in WP:AUTO also apply to such constructions: "It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should generally let others do the writing." Even if the information is 'neutral' in that it is factual rather than opinion, the selection of facts is likely to be slanted towards facts that present the topic in a positive light and against those that don't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:AUTO is a very good fit here. An individual writer may not care about public opinion, and write any lie about himself that comes into his head. He may even believe the lies he writes about himself. A college cares very much about public opinion because it has to attract students. The last thing a college wants is to get caught lying about itself because that would damage its public image. Does a college PR department have an "unconscious"? "Comparatively short", "bulked up", "excessive", "unbalanced" -- these are all subjective, and I guess we'll just have to decide them here by consensus, because the policies and guidelines you've been citing either don't apply at all or shouldn't be applied in an overly restrictive manner. That being said, it's not a good idea to let the alumni booster club write the article unsupervised. On the long and the short of it, wikipedia could come up with a "notability index": Oxford and Harvard get a 10 and are allowed 150K for their main article; SAU gets a 2 and is allowed 40k for its main article. Until that happens, I guess we just have to ~~fight it out in the trenches~~ (oh, sorry, I meant) work collaboratively, AGFing like mad, to arrive at a fair and balanced article to the greater glory of WIKI. Kenatipo ^speak! 21:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dever

I re-added the information on what Dever said about Southern. It looks like it was removed at some point thought I couldn't find out where this was or why it was. I can go ahead and remove it if this addition is controversial, but as far as I know this section was never contested. Fountainviewkid 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I re-added the ref. BelloWello first hid [2] this paragraph, claiming violation of WP:SPS, then blanked [3] it. The reason given was not valid. Dever is agnostic (it's in the ref'd article) and he describes Adventists as "conservative" and he does not single out SAU. Kenatipo ^speak! 22:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I should have known it was BW again (or should I say wmo?). Your addition is very much appreciated. Hopefully the quote by an agnostic is not seen as an endorsement of the "ultra-fundamentalist, extreme, irrational right wing segment". Fountainviewkid 23:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The information about Dever in the "Institute of Archaeology" section doesn't seem to be consistent with the Dever information in the "Ideology" section. Does this need to be corrected or am I misinterpreting it? Mojoworker (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you confused about? What is not "consistent" between the two sections? Fountainviewkid 13:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Institute of Archaeology section says "Dever gave his collection to Hasel.", while the Ideology section says "Dever loaned his collection of artifacts and his personal library to Southern Adventist University." So, the inconsistency is Dever loaned to Southern Adventist University vs. Dever gave to Hasel. I'm not really sure why it's in the article twice anyway. Also, there is no information about what Hasel's relationship is with SAU. Mojoworker (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation is that you can give something in at least two ways: as a donation (gift), or, as a loan. Newspapers aren't always specific about whether items given to museums are gifts or loans. Our ref 67, the Angela Baerg article says that Dever's artifacts are on loan to Southern. I'm looking for exact info about Dever's library. One way out is to say "placed" so we don't have to specify "loaned" or "donated". Kenatipo ^speak! 17:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting distinction. The newspaper article says it one way; the Columns article reports it differently. "Placed" certainly works. "Donated" definitely seems inaccurate and unlikely. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. Information about this transfer of Dever's collection is scant online. The two paragraphs about Dever accomplish two separate thoughts. One is incidental to Dever's appreciation of Southern's ideology. Did he place it with Southern or with Hasel? The two are very much interrelated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The changes made by Kenatipo just now work nicely. It also shows how goodwill and collaboration can move an article forward. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words, DRS. I would have to say, though, that improvement is much easier in the absence of disruptive influences. Again, thanks! Kenatipo ^speak! 22:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nice change. Seems to be consistent now. Mojoworker (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we add that Hasel is currently Director of the Institute of Archaeology, Curator of the Lynn H. Wood Archaeological Museum, and Professor of Near Eastern Studies and Archaeology at SAU? Fountainviewkid 23:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be hesitant. He's already named Institute Director. I took out R Cottrell's list of accomplishments based on the fact that he has his own article if folks want the details. Hasel also has his own article, so he's just a click away. Kenatipo ^speak! 01:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I changed my mind a little. The thing is not to overdo it! Kenatipo ^speak! 16:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like changes are flowing very smoothly, lets see if we can keep it going.Simbagraphix (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The disruptive influence mentioned above will be completing his mandatory sabbatical in about 14 hours if all the times I saw were UTC. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proffessor's [sic] influence

This is meaningless pablum that I would remove from any college or university article as cherry-picked student quotes praising (or denigrating) the institution add nothing meaningful to the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release or admissions brochure. I also challenge the value of the source and the truthfulness of the quote given that it's clearly a recruiting site written by the institution and its supporters. (Not to mention the poor spelling and grammar of the addition...) ElKevbo (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but is one quote from a student too much? I agree that it could become too much, but one simple addition I think could contribute positively to the article. I mean is really that much more different than the criticism already on here? Fountainviewkid 17:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems the issues are reliable secondary sources and important facts. Faculty-student rapport is an important part of Southern's life. The cited source is weak because it is advertising rather than a balanced report. If this faculty-student rapport was addressed in a newspaper, journal, scientific study, book, etc. then a student quote would probably be more acceptable. A university is often the first place that a student meets really accomplished educators, specialists in their chosen field. Add to that the kindly manners and caring found on a Christian campus like Southern and we have a very notable part of student life. We need a better source. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I re-removed the quotation, which Fountainviewkid had restored. As ElKevbo states, it is something that would have been removed from any college or university article. Bland student quotations featured on promotional brochures are not encyclopedia content. (For the same sorts of reasons, diatribes from anti-institutional websites also don't belong.) Try to base the article on objective information; if opinions are going to be quoted or described, let them be opinions with some authority behind them. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness this was not exactly a "promotional brochure". It was a quote about the institution from a website of the institution's overseeing body (North American Division Department of Education). I agree with Donald that the source is weak as it seems to be advertising, however it does come from an institutional body that is a reliable (albeit Primary) source. I will look as it should be very easy to find the same thing (if not the exact quote) in one of Donald's listed sources. Fountainviewkid 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, will just dig deep for faculty-student rapport addressed in a newspaper, journal, scientific study, book, etc. Lets see if can find some good input from the students as that is important in any article.Simbagraphix (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kevbo, Don, and Orlady. Do the students fill out questionnaires rating their professors on various criteria and then the results get reported in the student newspaper: "95% of Southern Students Have Inspirational Relationships with Professors, Survey Finds". (Does SAU have a student newspaper?) Or a customer satisfaction survey of alumni taken by a third party. But it can't be just one opinion of one co-ed, even if the whole "student body" feels the same way. Kenatipo ^speak! 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That quote is puffery, without substance or distinguishing merit. It should not be used in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the new addition from US News & WR? It's a reliable valid source and relates well the context. Yes it's from the mission statement, but it's only a portion (the portion relevant to that section of the article). Fountainviewkid 21:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mission statements

If I recall correctly, mission statements are permitted in articles. The partial one that Binksternet reverted, though, was put in the wrong place. Kenatipo ^speak! 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly the "mission statement". It was a partial quote from the mission statement relevant to the section under discussion (Student Life). US News & WR put it in the same place. What exactly is the problem as I thought the quote flowed nicely in that section and provided some relevant information even if it was from the school. And Birkenstreet this wasn't in a "promotional brochure". Fountainviewkid 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought it flowed very badly which is primarily why I took it out. The other reason was that it was overly promotional without saying much of substance:

According to it's [sic] mission the school "promotes Christian values and an ethical lifestyle" as well as "a living-learning environment where all are encouraged to pursue truth, wellness and a life of service".

That "living-learning" construction is pure puff. Per WP:NPOV, the promotional tone has got to stay out, leaving an impartial tone. Why is it insufficient to have the article be factual? Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please prepare yourself for an offtopic comment: it's amazing how many editors who typically don't edit this type of article have found their way to this tiny, SDA school, in the middle of nowhere, Start/Low assessed article. I include myself in this group along with Kenatipo & Bink. I'm going to name this phenomenon the "Bello effect." Lionel (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Lionel, we've seen similar none-to-subtle statements of WP:OWNERSHIP before -- generally, as now, when outsiders complain about SDA-insiders wishing to stack the article with still more WP:PRIMARY material, turning the article even more blatantly into a largely-irrelevant-to-outsiders 'about-Adventists/by-Adventists/for-Adventists' piece. If you want to edit such an article undisturbed by outsiders, I would suggest you find or found an Adventist wiki. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you know...Lionel isn't an Adventist. If fact he's not even Protestant. If this were only an "Adventist wiki" Lionel would be banned, especially due to SDA beliefs on Daniel and Revelation. I still believe however that when editing an article about a specific topic that credence could be given to those knowledgeable about the topic (i.e. Adventists on Adventist articles). Fountainviewkid 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Then that just makes his WP:OWNERSHIP chest-beating that much more bizarre. And there needs to be a balance such that being-an-insider-giving-depth-of-knowledge does not lead to {{over detailed}}-type behaviour. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FVK: The idea that in-Wikipedia credence might be given to those more knowledgeable on the topic depends wholly on their application of reliable sources. If an editor has little knowledge but interprets the references very well then they are quite suitable. Nobody should be writing solely from their own personal knowledge; they must use the references as the backbone and cite them thoroughly. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course Birk, but those with knowledge often have an understanding of the references. For example on this article the person who is probably the best editor is Donald. Why? He has BOTH the knowledge of us SDA's and the understanding of references of the non-SDA's. There have already been several cases on this article where he was able to help solve problems with references that occurred because you had non SDA's who knew a lot about references in general, but very little about SDA references. As a result there were some questions and challenges that thankfully Donald was able to explain and correct. Having a good knowledge of references does no good if you can't understand the applicability. Again that's why we need BOTH sides. Fountainviewkid 15:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Did a bit of scratching in the article's history, and the last major edit of Donald's I found was this one. Not only is this sort of editing exactly the sort of {{over detailed}} material I was discussing above (as well as the dispute that it was part of being a perfect example of why detached third-party sources are needed), but it is part of precisely the dispute that brought WP:ANI down on this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Um no. Look at the history a little bit more. It was Donald's edit that helped try to clarify an old dispute. That information had been added and re-added several times. He helped clarify it nicely. Sure it needed a little bit more work, but that information was all very relevant. Ask any of the other editors on here, Donald has been the fairest editor and probably the most balanced. WP:ANI was not brought on as a result of Donald, not in the least bit. Fountainviewkid 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were gathered here eagerly awaiting the imminent return of our "messiah". It will be a great disappointment if he doesn't return to revert twice again! Kenatipo ^speak! 23:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For me it is the Lionelt Effect, from the WikiProject Conservatism page with updates on articles of interest to the Project, coded into the page by Lionelt. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This article was mentioned at ANI, I think, in the context of contentious edits and an ongoing dispute. That's when I placed the article on my watchlist, alongside the other U.S. college and university articles I watch. I stayed out the previous discussions about religious minutiae and terminology because those are not my areas of interest and expertise. But student-faculty relationships and university missions statements? Those are indeed my areas of interest and expertise hence my recent participation. ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame Lionel for this. He's not the one edit warring and getting blocked. Southern really doesn't have a lot to do with Conservatism anyways. It's more notable for academics and religion. And yes the Bello effect is alive. Fountainviewkid 23:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of university mission statements: In my experience, most articles omit them but I don't have a strong objection to their inclusion. I prefer them not to be included unless there is something unique or interesting about them because most mission statements tend to be bland and so all-encompassing of everything a modern university does as to be useless. I don't know if that's the case here but it seems to me that those who want to include the mission statement should (a) use a primary source if they're going to quote it and (b) convince us that it should be included because it adds something to the article beyond a bland statement trumpeting the university's ambitions. ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. My reason for including that portion of the Mission statement was to specifically provide evidence for it's "religious and conservative student life". That section of the mission statement included phrasing that would not be found int he typical "bland all-encompassing modern university". I could easily provide any kind of source for that statement. The fact however that US News & WR chosen that part to give a summary of Southern I felt meant it had some significance. I think I've managed to do the same thing though with the Princeton Review so hopefully that will be more acceptable. Fountainviewkid 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the important thing especially with Admin or other Wiki editors on the scene, is that the editors actually working on the article are in agreement, a consensus has been reached at many points in the life of the article, but one editor knowing the minutia of Wikimedia can destroy all the work of all the others. Somehow I have this feeling I've seen this type tension with everyone waiting for things to flare in a movie.... oh yes, O.K. Corral.....Simbagraphix (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The classic film scene of a tense staredown between gunslingers is the spaghetti western with Clint Eastwood: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom even here at Wikipedia. We all come at the editing of SAU from different perspectives. For some it may seem like Adventists promoting Adventism and for others, they know nothing about Adventists and scratch their heads at the foolish antics of SDA's fussing over little things. Of course this is not an Adventist wiki, so there must be a calmer, more open way. IMO, with goodwill and the proven emphasis on sound references, the article is better for the variety of interest. It may be hard to see the benefit gained from edit warring (and edit warring is never the best way to move forward) but, with heightened vigilance, even an edit war can help make the article better. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Revising and extending my remarks on WP:MISSION. "If a mission statement doesn't describe the organization, help readers understand how this organization is unique and doesn't support the notability of the subject, it probably should not be transcribed in full in the article." So, while it's a rare mission statement that can be quoted in full, parts of the mission statement that do the things listed in the quote can be included. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

New IP Editing

We seem to have a new IP editing here who is engaging in rather controversial edits without discussion on the Talk page. Any solution?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Temporary page protection? Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we? I would support an action like that, even if it were only semi-protected.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP's editing style and edit sum idiosyncracies are identical to BelloWello. The IP's issues with the article are the same as Bello, e.g. an obsession with "conservative," and invalidating SDA sources by tagging them "better source." The IP's aggressive, bold, disruptive behavior, including editing against hard fought compromises and consensus is indicative of Bello. Disruptive talk page refactoring (at Samuel Pipim) is also indicative of Bello. I'm invoking WP:DUCK. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK? That's a funny one. My IP address here changes every couple weeks or so, I've edited for ages on and off in different subject areas.... and I get accused of being some random editor? See WP:HUMAN. Why exactly would I be this editor, Bello, but none of the other multiple IPs who have recently edited? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP was found to be a sock of Bello Wello. See here [4].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Religiously loving environment

This edit of the IP's is an incremental improvement. Lionelt's reversion of it was not good. The IP named the source of the POV quote "religiously loving environment", and the IP moved that quote out of the first sentence in the section called "Student life". The move makes for much better logical flow: where it was, the quote was used as proof that the the university has a conservative emphasis. How can "religiously loving environment" possibly imply conservativism? It can just as easily imply centrism or liberalism... more likely the latter. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet for providing a thorough rationale for what I thought would be a common sense edit. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Birk, see here [5]. The IP has been blocked for being a sock of a previously disruptive editor on this page Bello wello. BW was the instigator of this whole thing with a biased POV quote against Southern calling it "Ultra-fundamentalist" and part of "bible belt obscuratanism".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You have nothing to say about the edit itself? Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm tried of being a broken record. This edit has been extensively discussed in previous situations where I said a lot. I can repost it if you like, it's probably in the archives.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pssst, FVK, I think his name is Bink, not Birk. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well all I can see is that "religiously loving environment" cannot possibly be a proof of conservatism. The sentence as it was constructed was a synthesis and not supported by the source. I am glad somebody else came in to break it up as it made no sense. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Right. Sorry Bink. As for "conservative" I don't remember if you were or were not a part of the whole discussion. We had a long long discussion on that issue. That's one reason I "have nothing to say about the edit itself". I'm letting you guys take care of it, only adding in my support here and there.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of puffery

I removed this because the source of the statement is not sufficiently independent of Southern to be considered a objective source for such information. Please take to WP:RSN if you disagree instead of simply adding it back. Good day. 66.112.115.182 (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please allow for consensus before proceeding in such an abrupt manner. Your edit style is very much like the recently blocked IP and Bello Wello. We do not need more dispute on this article over POV and the like.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a rule which only allows registered, logged in users from removing other editor's work. User 66.112.115.182 should log in to an account and work in an equitable fashion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted all of this IP's edits as that of banned User:BelloWello. That said, IPs are allowed to edit any article that is not semi- or full-protected. L H M 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

History of Editing Seems to Call for Semi-protection

Hi all, it seems as though this SAU article is the ongoing target of unregistered editors. Why not seek to have it protected so that only registered editors with identifiable names, not just IP numbers, can edit this article. This Southern Adventist University article needs tough editorial scrutiny; it will be better for it. But, the unregistered editors often do not have the courtesy needed to make the tough edits a learning experience. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. How can we do this? I imagine our friend LHM knows more about this than we do?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the history of disruptive editing here; I'm going to semi-protect this at least as long as the 1RR is still in place. Kuru (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good see your still watching it all. Hopefully I've engaged a bit better wiki behavior than previously.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I approve of the semi-protection applied by Kuru. Thanks, Kuru. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to drop 1RR?

It seems to me that the 1RR restriction is no longer necessary on this page. I say this because out of the three accounts that had the most problems, two (Tatababy and BelloWello) are gone indefinitely and the other (Fountainviewkid) seems to be doing much better - thanks in no small part to BW's departure. Also, the issues that fed the previous edit warring seem to died down and/or been resolved. I see there are issues with IPs and possibly sock accounts, but those can be dealt with by blocks and semi-protection. At this point, 1RR looks to me to be an unnecessarily severe restriction on the editing of this page.--Kubigula (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with this assessment, the primary dispute seems to have passed. I would prefer to keep the semi up for a short time, regardless of the correlation I implied above. Kuru (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I support the semi. Bello is still around in the form of IP's as this appears to be one of his latest [6]. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no further comment or objection after 5 days, I am going to say the consensus is that the 1RR can be dropped (though the semi-protection should remain in place).--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

really?

this sentence from the lead needs a better source than some random website Southern submitted info to that is posting it verbatum: Southern has a strong record of acceptances into medical, dental, and law schools and its symphony orchestra, concert band, choral groups, and gymnastics team tour internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.226.134 (talk • contribs) 14:42, August 25, 2011

Good call. I removed the sentence (and your editprotected template since that is only used for fully-protected articles). ElKevbo (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Careful ElKevbo. The removal may/may not be right, but a new IP being involved here is highly suspicious. Especially with this other edit. We could probably find a better source for such a statement, but I would suggest allowing for some Talk page discussion/consensus before unilaterally removing material with a source. It never hurts to be a little patient in these kind of endeavors.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I also belive it should be removed until a reliable source for them could be found. The source is clearly self-submitted by SAU, and thus not a source we can use. — raeky t 03:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the statement which says this source was submitted by SAU? From what I see it came from the organization TICUA.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Because this has all the appearance to be just a simple "press release" blurb that a website like this would collect on their "members." It does not have the usual things that would be considered a reliable source, like references, author, etc. Plus these kind of claims need some strong secondary source, not something that screams to be a self-published marketing blurb. — raeky t 03:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it has the appearance but we have no proof that it is actually a "press release" straight from the university. Which guidelines specifically prohibit us from using the information from TICUA in the SAU article?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V I would think. — raeky t 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I read those and see no reason why this statement should be taken out. If it is "self-published" this source may still be used as long as.... I would argue that this material doesn't fit into those categories of rejected information. While it could be argued that is is "self-serving" it could also be argued that such material provides useful information that benefits more than just the university. If this is self-published then it is not a claim about a third party source, is not discussing events, there shouldn't be any doubting of its authenticity as it clearly comes from a booklet put out by TICUA (there's a pdf version as well), and this article isn't just based on primary sources. Which rule specifically does this material violate?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See below, it's clearly a WP:PEACOCK statement, and that should be reason alone for not including. There is also WP:BURDEN it's been removed so if you want it back it falls on your shoulder to prove that this information is accurate. Finding additional sources shouldn't be hard if it's true? More sources would end this debate I'm sure. — raeky t 03:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm also going to add that the statement about acceptance to medical, law school, etc... seems like WP:PEACOCK, and the bit about orchestra and band traveling seems irreverent since virtually every university sends their groups traveling... The statement needs better source and more specific information for inclusion. "Strong" is WP:PEACOCK and isn't clear, what is strong? — raeky t 03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What about if we just edited the statement while still using the source in a way that removes the WP:PEACOCK terms? I still think this source could be used, just not as a direct quotation. For example we could say something about how a Tennessee organization has noted it's "record on acceptance to .....as well as it's musical and gymnastics groups"? Wouldn't that be more acceptable? I think it's more the problem of how this source is used than the actual source itself. Finding additional sources on this is hard, only because it incorporates multiple elements (dental, medical, law, music groups and gymnastics). By themselves it is easy to get information about each items, but combined is difficult without using sources that could be "promotional" in nature. I see no real reason why this source violates the terms above.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Whats the point? Without other sources all you can say is that some students get accepted, that should be assumed with any university. The information seems irreverent for the article unless you get more specifics. And that is if you ignore the WP:RS concerns for the source. — raeky t 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's easy to get sources that state acceptance rates for various graduate schools then those could and should be included in the article, but this source I think is useless for the article for multiple reasons. — raeky t 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the point? To say something about acceptance AND provide information on various unique programs the school has. Also I am not ignoring WP:RS. As you should see above I actually quoted from it in order to demonstrate that the source in question does not violate the rules or guidelines. I guess I could get sources on acceptance rates but I don't know how to do that. I will try though. I think this the source could at least be used for providing information about musical and/or gymnastics programs. Why is there a problem in just including that last bit of information while based the acceptance part on other sources?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Whats unique in that statement? If you remove the puffery then all you can say is they have traveling groups and some graduates get accepted to graduate schools, nothing is really important or worthy of inclusion? — raeky t 04:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Their gymnastics group is unique, although not everything in the article has to be "unique". This is an additional qualification you are creating. What is wrong in mentioning the music groups? Because they might not be "unique"? If so then I see no reason why the statement should have been removed. It needs a stronger negative than simply "not unique enough". After all who said this was an art contest?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

An acceptable source for what programs they offer is their website, but unless it's something that stands out from the norm, why should you list what programs they offer on Wikipedia? I find it hard to believe that most universities don't offer gymnastics? It's not a requirement I'm proposing, I'm simply responding to your comment where you said this source "provide[s] information on various unique programs the school has." I was simply asking what in that statement is unique? Doesn't the vast majority of universities offer these programs? — raeky t 04:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay ditch the term unique and you still don't have a reason to eliminate the statements. They are relevant and provide information about the school, especially since the gymnastics and music groups are important items about the university. Are they unique? Maybe not, but that's an irrelevant issue.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think there is not consensus for your position that it should be restored. — raeky t 04:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to remove it in the first place? Should there be a discussion on the Talk page before taking such measures into one's own proverbial hand? --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only to the specific issue regarding where the burden of proof lies, I would agree with those who are asking for further--and better--sourcing for inclusion. L H M 04:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am working on better sourcing but I would suggest not eliminating sources and statements with sources until there has been ample time to discuss the issue on the Talk page.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN if you want to re-add this information you'll need to get better sourcing, and it appears your trying to do that. As for consensus four editors here think it should be removed unless better sourcing is found. — raeky t 04:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you count a possible sock as an editor you get 4, however I would remind this consensus has come after the action, not before it. Shouldn't you FIRST get consensus and then remove the material? Even with WP:BURDEN it is still better to at least give opposing views a chance to be heard, as this is consistent with Wikipedia editing policies. Better sourcing should come, but please wait in the future before making many sudden rushes to judgement. I have to get back to checking if that IP is a sock or not.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not if the material clearly has as many issues as above. The usual edit cycle is to do the edit, since the original person bringing it to our attention was an IP editor (disregarding the possibility of them being a sock) they would of removed it themselves with the reasons given. Since they couldn't posting it here found an editor that also agreed so they made that change, and two more subsequent editors also agree. Material should meet criteria BEFORE it is included, and if it doesn't meet criteria it should be removed. That is what has occurred here. There is no need for consensus to remove something that appears to violate policy. — raeky t 05:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No matters of controversy should be discussed before sudden actions are taken. The point of Wikipedia consensus is to establish a direction on an action. By prematurely making an edit, an editor violates this spirit. It is precisely because of a material's "issues" why consensus is so important. The usual edit cycle is to observe a problem, post about it on the Talk page and obtain a consensus. Once that consensus is obtained then an editor can act. The point of the talk page is for this discussion far more than it is for pointing other editors towards engaging in specific edits. It is funny that you acknowledge the other editors agreement which came AFTER the edit. The point of wiki is not edit everything you disagree with. It's to discuss it, something that is finally being done here but which originally was ignored in favor of unilateral action. This is a debate about whether the material meets the criteria. Rather than simply pushing your view on the article is is better to obtain a consensus. As for the last sentence is so full of personal opinion that it doesn't even need responded to. What "violates policy" isn't always as clear cut as some editors would imagine it to be. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the point of wikipedia, or at least one of the big ones is WP:BOLD for which we get WP:BRD. Like I said, clear-cut cases of policy violation do not require consensus for their removal, and sticking with WP:AGF we can assume ElKevbo assumed as much. Regardless, we're at this point where it seems the consensus is against the material's re-addition without additional sources. — raeky t 05:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget this line "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus". I guess I could have gone ahead and reverted the edit which then would have brought us to the Talk page, but I tried to come to the talk page first. In the future remind me to revert first based on the WP:BRD approach. Also this is not a "clear cut" case of violation. Instead it is a questionable source which may or may not provide unique information. Yes additional sources will come, but hopefully in the future we begin on the Talk page before getting into the reverts. I've tried to make the Talk page my policy, but I guess not everyone sees the same. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasons for removal are insufficient. I disagree that the material is "clearly self submitted." It is not clear. I checked the organization and did not find any "submission guidelines." It is completely within the realm of possibility that TICUA staff wrote the blurb. We do know that it is not a press release. WP:BURDEN does not support removal in this case, as it has not been established that the source is not reliable. That is what WP:RSN is for. WP:PEACOCK is never grounds for removing a source. PEACOCK content should be written so it is not POV, not removed. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue with that is, the modification to remove the peacock word makes the information virtually pointless. The information I presume that is wanted to keep is that SAU has a higher then average acceptance rate to graduate programs, which is what the reference is referring but in a peacock way. Additional sources would be needed to substantiate that. I also don't agree that this source isn't just reposting information provided by SAU, it just seems to marketing type wording to be not the case. Additionally it was a direct quote from that website which is another issue. What would be the proposed rewording of it to remove peacock language? — raeky t 06:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. Material can be from a completely reliable source but not appropriate for an encyclopedia article because it's vague puffery. Reliable sourcing is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no controversy here. The statement was vague and supported only by one poor source. I get that you disagree but the consensus here is quite clear so please either produce new evidence supporting the statement or move on. ElKevbo (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is no consensus. There are 3 editors and a (possible) IP sock arguing one way and 2 other editors arguing the other way. Consensus isn't a vote so even 4-2 doesn't necessarily establish it. As I have noted we could easily modify the wording and only say something about the music and gymnastics programs. Lionel is right in that WP:PEACOCK can not be used for removing a source by itself. There is a debate if this source is reliable hence WP:BURDEN does not apply. Of course Raeky doesn't AGREE that this source isn't just reposting information from SAU, however this is no strong evidence for such a position. And furthermore wikipedia editing isn't based on whether one "agrees" on a situation or not. It may be a marketing type and it may not be. As for the direct quote I have already offered about 5 times now to modify it so that the terminology sounds more informational and less promotional. Each time however I have been shot down by editors who are refusing to negotiate and give in. ElKevbo how nice of you to make the determination for all of us that there is no controversy here. I guess now that you've said it, it makes it so. How nice of you to decide we have consensus even though there is clear disagreement from at least a couple of editors. I will be working on new evidence but in the future I might have to use WP:BRD and hope you discuss rather than revert my revert.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean consensus hasn't been reached. It's pretty clear there are issues with the source and it's a basic peacock statement. If you readd it at any point in the future with the same source it will not resolve these issues and likely be reverted. Keep in mind this is a problem topic article, with past sanctions. To me it looks like you might have a bit of a WP:OWN problem with this article with your level of involvement and comments.... I'd caution you not to go against policy or consensus to try to reintroduce peacock language or rely on poor sources. — raeky t 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

" readd it at any point in the future with the same source it will not resolve these issues and likely be reverted": sounds like you are declaring an edit war. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not, just stating by reintroducing an edit that violates established policy would be removed, those reverts clearly are exempt from WP:3RR. — raeky t 07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take another look at WP:3RRNO. This content issue does not fall under any of the listed exemptions and crossing 3RR may result in a block.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all of us are mature enough to not cross the WP:3RR rules... and I think the problems with the source are well established here now... — raeky t 08:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That is true Lionel. I didn't see this comment. Don't worry, I won't go against policy and reintroduce poor sources. I might however reintroduce verified sources that while having some level of promotional nature, due to provide informative material on SAU. As for peacock language, no I won't add that, though remember it can not be used as a justification for taking out a source. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)