Talk:Southern Adventist University

Criticism of criticism

The criticism is unfounded, it comes from an obscure source that most Southern Adventist University Students have never even heard of. The credibility of the person making the critical comments is in question as is the statement being made.

ApsbaMd2 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks based on regulations

I found this in the history of the article as I was trying to improve it. (Actually, I found an longer version with more attacks than anything else..) I readded it to the article and whittled it down some before going on a hunt for sources (which I assumed existed). I couldn't find any except this blog post which doesn't seem particularly reliable. So this is probably true but not fit for the article at this point so I'm transferring it here. If there are sources found, it could be readded I guess.. BelloWello (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppressive regulations

Southern Adventist University has been accused of implementing numerous arbitrary rules. Sleeveless shirts are not allowed in the new Wellness Center. The facility has a prime view of shirtless men at the pool. The academic staff believes that sleeveless shirts promote "unchristian" values. Pepper and mustard are banned in the cafeteria and may not be brought in. This regulation is traced to some of the writings of Ellen G. White. It has been said that a majority of the faculty do not agree with the rules, however, the university's wealthy benefactors do. Many of the students believe that the current president, Gordon Bietz, is a bureaucratic puppet for the McKee family. Contrary to the school's supposed commitment to spiritual growth, Southern Adventist University has been accused of stifling spiritual maturation. Instead of providing opportunities for students to formulate ideas themselves, ideas are indoctrinated through propaganda in required worships.

Response to Quixar and explanation of recent edits.

This is in response to a message from Quixar on my talk page. From the content of his message, it appears that he is the same person as IP address 216.229.229.94, which there is no problem with, just something I wanted to note for anyone else who may read our exchange.

• First, you removed information noting critical analysis of Southern from the article while editing from Southern's own servers as a geolocate on the IP shows. I believe this to be a conflict of interest, however, that is not the only justification for my revert. The controversies and comments were all reliably sourced and should have better explanation for removal. As you can see above, I removed an uncited attack on Southern from the article because it did not have appropriate sourcing.
• I removed the information you added because it was largely uncited (I believe there may have been one or two sources), information on wikipedia must have reliable sources. Spectrum is considered a reliable source, AToday is considered a reliable source, Adventist Review is a reliable source but would be a self-published source in referring to an Adventist Institution, etc. We have to have independent sources for information added, hence I reverted your, probably true, but original research edits.

I believe that covers the main issues you brought up. Now to respond to your specific comments on my page:

student missionary death and "gun point" items happened off campus. Unless these incidents happened on campus, I don't find it relevant to the entry. That would lead to us reporting alumni deaths, car accidents, suicides, etc. I didn't remove the death of the student on campus due to the fire because I feel its more relevant to the university since it occurred on campus.

• I'm not sure where you got the idea that a incident has to occur on campus in order for it to be noted in an article on the subject. The "gun point" incident is notable because it resulted in the end of southern's home nursing program. As for the student missionary death, I think it is notable because of the wide attention it received from reliable sources, as well as the fact that Southern places a large emphasis on its student missionary program and it is the only known death of a student missionary. Southern widely promotes it's student missionary program and it even places the number of current student missionaries on its homepage!

The "masturbation controversy" section seems sensationalist in its titling at the very least. I'm not sure why one controversy back in the 80s merited singling out.

• As I said in my edit summary, it could very well be called the biggest controversy southern was embroiled in... How many other controversies has southern been involved in that resulted in the resignation of a board member and caused a president to go on a "sabbatical" in the face of being removed? If you know of any more, please add them with sources! Also, in your edit summary you cited WP:NOTNEWS as justification for your removal. I don't see how that policy applies to events from the eighties, it would apply more to not adding information about trivial news mentions...

The ideology section just seems to be focused on one person's opinion. There have been articles claiming Southern has become too liberal. Why does this one merit inclusion in your opinion?

• The Raymond Cottrell comments merits inclusion due to his status as a leading Adventist scholar. He either served as Editor or Assistant Editor for all three major Adventist publications, well, you can go read his article. His comments on an Adventist institution seems very worth including considering its origin from a very prominent figure. If you can find an article claiming Southern has become too liberal, that is reliably sourced and is not WP:FRINGE, please feel free to include it. I have no disagreement to doing so.

I'll be honest; your recent edits give the impression of vandalism. Most of your edits seem to be to add negative commentary. Using Spectrum, a commentary blog, as a source seems to provide a lot of the negative wording. There is nothing included from the Review, ANN, or any other sources that are more news/announcement.

• Let's not resort to character assassination. Also, I refer you to the policy requirement to assume good faith. Feel free to read above for my reasoning for quoting Spectrum, which I might add is more than a "commentary blog," although that is hardly the point.

I would like to resolve this rather than get into an edit duel. I spent a bunch of time going through an old book on Southern and visiting their website to add some of that information. I don't want to see it go to waste.

• I appreciate your good faith attempt to come to an agreement. If you have information sourced to a reliable book, that is awesome! Please add information from the book to the article and source the information to it! Books are excellent sources.

Thank you for updating the number of majors, etc. I guess your book would probably contain information about the name changes so the citation needed templates could be removed soon... I'll be glad to collaborate with you to improve coverage of southern in wikipedia. BelloWello (talk)

Also, I would be interested if you, as someone who is at Southern could find documentation for the information above that I removed regarding rules at Southern? I could only find self-published blogs about it so it is obviously not reliably sourced but perhaps there's something you can find that could source some of that? BelloWello (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing discussion, consensus was not found to add the "progressive" label to Raymond Cottrell, further discussion of other issues can continue in separate threads. BelloWello (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I have reverted User:Fountainviewkid's edit here, since the term "Progressive" is unnecessary to identify him to readers, they can easily click through to his article to see that. If you feel more identification is needed, I would note that he was involved in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, was the Assistant Editor of the Adventist Review, etc., those would be important identifying facts if needed, being progressive? not so much. BelloWello (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the identifier Progressive Adventist is appropriate since it provides context to the source. The vast majority of the SDA church would not consider this college to be "ultra-fundamentalist" which I believe sounds more like trying to score cheap political points. By adding the description it allows the quote to be understood properly. Plenty of students come out of Southern which are not "ultra-fundamentalist", Sam Leonor for example. Fountainviewkid 19:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of the label is a violation of the policy on verifiability, as we do not have a reliable source that call him a "progressive." Your disagreement with his characterization notwithstanding, we need reliable sources for everything added, and there are currently no such sources for calling Dr. Cottrell progressive. Even if there were such sources, I would disagree with its inclusion, but we'll discuss that if you actually find sources. BelloWello (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am basing my tagging off the Progressive Adventist page, where he is mentioned in that category. Fountainviewkid 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is not reliably sourced either, the fact it is in another wikipedia is not justification to include it in another article per WP:CIRCULAR, so again, please either provide reliable sources or remove the WP:LABEL. BelloWello (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no source or reply has been suggested, I ask that an administrator remove the "Progressive" WP:LABEL from Raymond Cottrell, unless Fountainviewkid provides a WP:RS for the label by then, in which case I ask that it be added with in-text attribution. In other words, either the label should be removed or sourced. This is independent of the content dispute that caused the article protection below. BelloWello (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

LABELS Hi all, why do we consider it necessary to label someone as "progressive" or whatever. If they have labelled themselves, that seems more acceptable. Cottrell's comments quote kind of provide their own identifiers it seems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually found a good link which classifies Cottrell under this description. I can agree also with DonaldRichardSands (talk) that the quote may also provide an identifier. I still don't see a problem in including the extra label since this is the only comment in the ideology section. Having a Progressive Adventist attack an institution as ultra-fundamentalist or Historic Adventist is not very useful for understanding the true ideology of the college. Fountainviewkid 3:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Donald, it is an unnecessary label either way. Can we see this WP:reliable source, by the way? I wouldn't call it an attack, simply a very accurate description of the school. Unless Fountainviewkid can provide a policy explanation as to why it should be included, I think it should be removed. BelloWello (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The source is a book which so far I have only been able to access online (http://propheticparallels.com/book_1/chapter_13.html). The fact you consider the school to be "ultra-fundamentalist" and see Cottrell's views as accurate demonstrate a strong bias against the school. I prefer using more neutral NPOV terms. I still don't see a problem in including the extra label since this is the only comment in the ideology section. Having a Progressive Adventist attack an institution as ultra-fundamentalist or Historic Adventist is not very useful for understanding the true ideology of the college. Fountainviewkid 3:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How does that demonstrate a strong bias, pray tell? The fact that you do not consider them accurate seems to "demonstrate a strong bias against" Cottrell. Labels in general are best avoided in wikipedia unless they are attributed. If you don't like the only comment in the ideology section, then please, feel free to find a reliable sourced counter opinion and post it. The source you provided does not appear to be a reliable source and is therefore insufficient to call him a progressive adventist for wikipedia purposes. Furthermore, it is unnecessary, hence, it should be removed. BelloWello (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I only have as strong a bias against Cottrell as you have against Southern Adventist University, which is interesting since you're trying to edit this page to fit a certain ideological perspective. I am not doing the same on Cottrell's page, since I don't feel it is appropriate to push my bias onto a biography of a person who has recently been alive. As for the source being reliable, I would dispute your charge. The fact that it cites many many sources that have been verified, etc. strengthen its reliability. If you want however I can use the book Seeking a Sanctuary, which you won't be able to attack (hopefully).Fountainviewkid 04:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, actually the book you provided is highly unreliable. It's source for Cottrell being progressive is, wait for it, (whispering so we don't tell everyone...) wikipedia!, so I stand behind my statement that such WP:CIRCULAR sources are not reliable. As for Seeking a Sanctuary, I am unfamiliar with the book, however, the wikipedia page doesn't seem to give it any particular reliability for a contested claim. The best we could say is "Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart called Cottrell..," which would then be questionable under WP:WEIGHT, and I think it would fail. BelloWello (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am basing the identification of him being a Progressive Adventist off more than wikipedia. The book categorizes both beliefs and those who hold them. As such it places Cottrell into the category. It uses wikipedia merely as an additional background source. As for Seeking a Sanctuary, it is has been quoted as The most authoritative study of Seventh-day Adventism" by a prominent SDA historian and easily provides a validation. If you Cottrell's rant can be used to describe the ideology of Southern, then Bull & Lockhart should at least be allowed since they are far more academic, professional, and NPOV. Fountainviewkid 04:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of Kenneth Newport, so I cannot judge whether he is a "prominent SDA historian," please point me to where in the other book it categorizes both beliefs and those who hold them. The only thing I found was an item sourced to wikipedia which is circular. The book as a whole seems unreliable, so unless it can point us to a reliable source through its citations, then it is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not require that its sources be NPOV, just that everything be verifiable and from reliable sources. Like I said, Bull & Lockhart can be allowed in a manner that clearly states whose view whatever they say is. Furthermore, it would belong on the Raymond Cottrell article, not in this article. Again, why should we WP:LABEL Cottrell here? You still haven't provided a policy reason for this. BelloWello (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be rough consensus to remove the label, at least until a reliable source is produced which supports the use of the label.  Removed for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ. :) BelloWello (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to any interested: Unfortunately, User:Fountainviewkid has taken their crusade to label Cottrell outside of what they consider the "mainstream" to his main article. The same issues with sourcing remain. BelloWello (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:LABEL was removed because it wasn't really necessary. The issue was not so much whether Cottrell was progressive but rather whether the label was useful. Look again at the other user comments can you can see that this is the issue. It's not about source, it's about the location of the label.Fountainviewkid 02:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The question was that there was no reliable source for it. Now there is that I provided, from Adventist Today. But it is still not sufficient to WP:LABEL him, it is only enough to say "Some of his views have been described as progressive." or some variation of that.

The question was if the label was appropriate. See what DonaldRichardSands (talk) said. It wasn't about the reliability of the source. Fountainviewkid 03:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The source was not reliable and neither was the label appropriate. DOUBLE WHAMMY! BelloWello (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The source may have been reliable, but either way I found more sources detailing him as "progressive"! See [2]. Fountainviewkid 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, buddy, I found that. So in other words you should be saying thank you and leaving it at that. Unlike what appears to be some other editor's motivation, I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. BelloWello (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay well thanks for it. I did find other sources though such as a LaSierra University page which says the same thing (even more clearly). I'm here to improve the encyclopedia and not make false accusations as you seem to enjoy. Furthermore I don't try to include only one side. Fountainviewkid 17:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's seems that some editors are here for an WP:AGENDA, that's fine, we'll work around it for now.. BelloWello (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change of title, rewording.

I have retitled the section "Early 1980's masturbation controversy" rather than just "Early 1980's controversy," in that, it is more descriptive and unique to this article. There were plenty of controversies around the world in the Early 1980's, the one at Southern needs to somehow be differentiated. BelloWello (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, that part of the article has become quite large in comparison with the others... I'm afraid anymore additions and it might become WP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelloWello (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be differentiated, but the title is still rather misleading. The President and board member were not removed (or made to resign) because of a debate over the issue masturbation. The issue instead was over the authority of Ellen White as a doctrinal guide for the church. I would suggest a title such as "Controversy over Ellen White's Authority" or something to that effect. Fountainviewkid 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The controversy started because a member of the faculty said he disagreed with Ellen White on the medical effects of masturbation, although it grew into part of a wider church conflict, that is what started it at Southern and sets it apart from the others. Hence, I think including the topic that caused the disagreement in the title is reasonable. BelloWello (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Masturbation was only the initial spark. The board member and President did not leave because of masturbation views. They left because there was a dispute about the role of Ellen White. The masturbation issue was a small part of a larger controversy involving the role of Ellen White in the SDA church during the 1980's which continues to this day. The topic which brought Southern into this debate was one smaller issue therefore I believe it is better to have a title which is more generalizable and broad. I see others agree. Fountainviewkid 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Masturbation was the cause and most significant specific aspect. The masturbation issue was the question that caused the "scandal" on campus that the administration was forced address and the president left over. BelloWello (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't trying to cover the part of the large controversy, this is only covering the "small part of the larger controversy" that occurred at Southern, and that small part, revolves around the Masturbation issue. BelloWello (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Authority of Ellen White was the most significant aspect which caused the "scandal" on campus. Fountainviewkid 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What caused the scandal was the fact that some faculty members did not agree with Ellen White's pseudoscience regarding masturbation. How can I make it clearer for you? BelloWello (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the issue was Ellen White's views on scientific issues, not the issue of masturbation per say. Basically I say give a general title and allow the details to follow. After all that's the way the rest of the article is written. Recent Events, Ideology, etc. don't have detailed title pages, and I think we should have the same policy. Fountainviewkid 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The other sections don't have anything specific, except for the section on names, whose necessity is caused by name changes. This is about a controversy caused by views on masturbation, hence that should be reflected in the title. Can you please reply to the section regarding labels as well? BelloWello (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe we should keep a consistent policy. Either give details for all the other section titles, or keep this one general. The controversy was on the authority of Ellen White, hence that should be reflect in the title if anything specific should be there.Fountainviewkid 21:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the source? I just did and very little of it even deals with masturbation. "They revolved around three main areas: teaching concerning righteousness by faith versus perfection; the inspiration of Ellen White; and the concept of the heavenly sanctuary." I would argue that my edits have been closer to the situation at Southern.Fountainviewkid 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from this and think about it. My blood pressure is currently rising. BelloWello (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. That's why I went and read the source. Seriously just take a read through the article. I think it should help contextualize the issues.Fountainviewkid 22:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a short period to encourage you two to conclude this discussion in lieu of edit warring over the changes. Please let me know if you resolve before the protection expires, and I will remove it. Kuru (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you. Hopefully we will resolve this issue. Fountainviewkid 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not gonna worry about this till tomorrow, perhaps Fountainviewkid will take the time to actually answer my comments by then... BelloWello (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

THE CONSERVATIVE NATURE OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA If we have a choice between sensationalist wording and conservative understatement, I prefer the conservative understatement for an article in an encyclopedia like wikipedia. Re: Southern's Crisis. The crisis was not long focused on Ellen White's medical views re: masturbation. That was just momentary. Look over the original source, i.e. the Spectrum article. The masturbation controversy was soon in the background as the challenge to orthodoxy developed. To headline the crisis in the early 1980's as "The Masturbation Scandal", or similar, is very sensationalist and rather inaccurate. I can't imagine that masturbation was on the minds of the board as they dealt with Gladson, Knittel, Francis, Zackrison, et al. The crisis did not long focus on masturbation. I suggest that this title does not describe the developing crisis at Southern in the early 1980's. It may have triggered the crisis but it was not the reason for the resignations or firings. Also, the teacher's comment about scientific evidence hardly seems something that would stir up leaders. Perhaps a fringe of the laity, but not the leadership. They would look for reasons which would stand up in board discussions. I attended Southern in the mid 70's and recall meeting a few of the fringe laity. They were quite volatile. But Southern's crisis did not revolve around the masturbation controversy; rather it revolved around the inspiration of Ellen White, the inclusion of textual criticism in the theology curriculum, etc.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with DonaldRichardSands (talk) on this one. I only used the "medical" title to try and placate BelloWello (talk). Having re-read the source article I definitely agree the issue was far more broad and focused on significant theological issues. I also agree that the "masturbation title" was too focused on sensationalism, rather than professionalism and accuracy. Perhaps we could call it "1980's Theological Crisis", or something of that sort. Fountainviewkid 3:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is certainly about more, or at least the controversy with the church at large, but the controversy at Southern was kicked off when some fringe-right-wing individuals were alerted through the disagreement on masturbation that some faculty did not believe in Ellen White. This grew to become a part of the larger 1980 Theological Crisis (which I think deserves an article...) but the biggest disagreement at Southern began due to the disagreement over Masturbation and it never really changed... BelloWello (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the source article!!!! The issue had VERY little to do with masturbation. Read what DonaldRichardSands (talk) said! To quote him "Southern's crisis did not revolve around the masturbation controversy; rather it revolved around the inspiration of Ellen White, the inclusion of textual criticism in the theology curriculum, etc.". The big disagreement was NOT about masturbation it was about these other core issues. Fountainviewkid 2:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did. The issue in the larger church didn't revolve around masturbation, but that IS what kicked it off on Southern's campus. BelloWello (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again talk to DonaldRichardSands (talk). The issue even at Southern was much greater than masturbation. That was merely one of the many events that happened on the campus. That Florence lady didn't come to Southern just because of masturbation. She came because she heard about "liberal views" which expanded far beyond this one issue. Masturbation IS NOT what kicked off the issue. Other issues the inspiration of Ellen White, the inclusion of textual criticism in the theology curriculum, etc. were the main cause. Fountainviewkid 3:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I will discuss it on THIS talk page. I don't deny those were factors, but the witch hunt was kicked off when Masturbation was discussed in church. Did you even read the section? BelloWello (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the source article? The controversy was over theological issues. Masturbation was one small portion. I read the Spectrum Article; all of it, as well as other articles detailing the controversy. Fountainviewkid 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did too. I already said I don't deny that there were other issues, but the controversy on southern's campus was kicked off by a theologian stating their disagreement with Ellen White on masturbation. BelloWello (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The controversy was over a number of theological issues. Masturbation was more of a side topic. Fountainviewkid 19:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement on masturbation was the spark that set if off. BelloWello (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, actually other issues were also set. Masturbation was merely one issue among a larger set. As I said see what DonaldRichardSands (talk) said.Fountainviewkid 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote, I already read what he said. The event that started this whole controversy was a member of the faculty discussion masturbation and disagreeing with some of White's conclusions. BelloWello (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the article as well. The controversy did not have one single event. There were several many relating to the theological controversy. Why keep trying to sensationalize that which is not. Fountainviewkid 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the controversy had one single event. The controversy began because of a discussion that centered around masturbation, or can you not recognize that? BelloWello (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The controversy began because of multiple issues which congregated together. One of these issues was Ellen White's comments on the issue of masturbation. Can you not recognize this?Fountainviewkid 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already recognized that there were multiple issues in play by the time it was concluded. Can you not recognize that the issue which set off the witch hunt was the statement on masturbation? BelloWello (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already recognized that a controversy over Ellen White's statements on masturbation was one small part of a larger set of theological issues at Southern. It was NOT the issue which set off the controversy. Fountainviewkid 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue at Southern began when some members of the laity learned that a faculty member did not agree with Ellen White on masturbation, hence, setting off the controversy that morphed to include other issues. BelloWello (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died out without a consensus being reached. The current title may be alright as long as it provides context on what exactly set off this controversy at southern. BelloWello (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to resurrect the whole discussion but as I read over the comments, one thing caught my attention and I think is worth pointing out. The theology teacher said that he had not seen any scientific studies which support Ellen White's statements. That is quite a careful thing to say. I don't think we can conclude from that comment that he did not believe in Ellen White's inspiration. Some in the church who believe in her inspiration allow for her to be a product of her times, not infallible, not inerrant, etc. Inspiration allows for a broad range of views. I think it is probably accurate to say that some concluded that the teacher making those remarks did not believe in Ellen White's inspiration. In the midst of Gladsen's crisis a bit later on in the mid 1980's I called him and asked him what was going on. He expressed appreciation that someone was trying to get their real views understood. Some features of a tightly knit community like Collegedale can create imaginary dragons or at least bigger than life, inflated, issues. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Home Health Care Program

I just received an email from the Dean of the School of Nursing and she said the home health care nursing program wasn't terminated as the cited article stated. It was just moved to the Mary Walker Towers (another housing complex). I have no sources other than her email. She also stated that article had many inaccuracies. Any suggestions for what to dow with that line under "Recent Events"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixar (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We go under verifiability in reliable sources, ask her to publish her response in a verifiable forum which we can source. We don't write based on what's true, we write based on what reliable sources say. BelloWello (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If we go by verifiability then BelloWello (talk) has violated that stipulation by not reading what the source actually says. Here's a quote from the source, a short news clip. "The program may not be completely dead, though. The Dean of the school is thinking of moving the program to Mary Walker Towers, where the environment is more controlled and the students can be safer." To me this latest update corroborates what the source says. Fountainviewkid 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"A local college puts the brakes on a home health program after some of its nursing students are accosted." is also in that article. I would not have a problem with changing the word "terminated" to "discontinue" to reflect the source better. As for Mary Walker Towers, we do not have a source for it having moved and until there is a source that it has moved, there is no reason to include it. An email is irrelevant. BelloWello (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And where is the word discontinue found? All the evidence states that this is likely to be temporary via the source. I say change it to "temporarily suspended". As for Mary Walker Towers, the article notes that this is likely to be the case. It may be good to add this into the line as well by saying something like "however there are still plans to continue it possible at Mary Walker Towers". Fountainviewkid 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It was discontinued. "The program may not be completely dead, though." does not provide license to say it was temporarily suspended, it says the program ended but may be resurrected. As such, we should simply state that it was "discontinued," "ended," "interrupted," etc. It should not state that it was a temporary end, since the source doesn't explicitly say that, instead it hinted at the possibility. I would be okay with saying "Southern ended its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010. At the time, it was stated that the program may be revived at a future date with a new location." if someone can summarize that without it being misleading. Otherwise, "Southern ended/discontinued its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010." is the best we can do. BelloWello (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It was not "discontinued", or if it was we have no verifiable source saying such a thing. No where does it even say the program "ended" either. These are all assertions you are reading into the source, just as I reading into it that the program is back up (based on the information provided by it's leadership). Temporarily suspended sounds far more appropriate to me. The word suspended is actually used in the source. I have yet to see any of your suggestions use the source. Fountainviewkid 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the word "temporary" in the source, rather I see it say that the Southern "put the brakes on" the program. Information provided by leadership in a private manner is irrelevant to this discussion, we go by reliable sources, and those alone. BelloWello (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes "put the brakes" as in stopped the program or "suspended" it. There is also evidence in the article that this would be a temporary situation. There is far stronger evidence for this being a "temporary suspension" than a "termination". Fountainviewkid 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing for "termination" in this thread, do you? BelloWello (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

or "ending" or "discontinued"? I don't see either of those in the source. I do however see "suspended" with evidences that the action would be "temporary". Fountainviewkid 19:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above, reproduced: "I do not see the word "temporary" in the source, rather I see it say that the Southern "put the brakes on" the program. Information provided by leadership in a private manner is irrelevant to this discussion, we go by reliable sources, and those alone." BelloWello (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See the article. Is notes that it "may not be dead yet". In other words this could be temporary. It even notes a potential new location. This to me sounds like a temporary suspension. Fountainviewkid 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the word "temporary" in the source. Whether or not it was temporary, it ended at one point. That is indisputable. The new location was quoted speculation and does not belong in the article. BelloWello (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"temporary" is implied in the article itself. We have no record that it "ended". We know that it was halted or "discontinued" but this could mean either long term or short term. Looking at the rest of the article we can see quite clearly that there is evidence for this program continuing. Therefore, it looks more like a short-term (temporary) situation rather than long term. As a result words such as "ended", "terminated", or "discontinued" are unclear.Fountainviewkid 19:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, there is no evidence for the program continuing. At the time of the article, the program had been discontinued, as you even admitted. You are right, it could mean short or long term, and since the article only says that the school would attempt to restart the program, it does not provide verification that it was temporary. Until there is a reliable source saying it's restarted, or that it was temporary, it is incorrect to include the word temporary. Can we at least agree to change the word to "discontinue" instead of "terminate" pending further discussion? BelloWello (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is evidence that the program would continue. All we know is that at some point it was halted, though whether this was long term or short term we have no solid evidence. Therefore we have to look at the rest of the article which provides strong evidence that this was a "temporary" situation. It's interesting that you don't want the word "temporary" since it's not the source, but you have no problem with the word "discontinue" which also isn't in the source. I would suggest that we either change the word to something directly from the source or change it to reflect the undetermined nature of the situation, which the article clearly stated. Fountainviewkid 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What we know is that they ended/discontinued/halted/etc. the program. We do not know whether it was temporary, and there is no evidence that it was temporary in the article. Just that the school would like it to be temporary. I agree that the term "terminate" gives the wrong impression, would you agree to a change to "discontinue" for now? BelloWello (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What we know is rather ambiguous. We know that at some point the program was "suspended". By definition suspended can easily mean temporary. For example if a person is "suspended" from work rather than fired there is a good chance they will be back at the job. I say we should stick to the source and it's wording. We do not know that it is temporary, but contrary to your assertion we have evidence that is was to be temporary. As for the school liking it to be, I would assume so but have no way of knowing for sure must as we do not know whether this was temporary or long term. As for "discontinue" it is not in the source. "Suspended" is the closest we have, which even that is still not the clearest, but is better than the current. If you're going to use a source you should use the terminology of it. No place does it say this program was "discontinued".Fountainviewkid 19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say temporary. Where is the evidence that it was to be temporary? All we have is a statement from someone at the school saying they're looking at possibilities. It was discontinued with the possibility that it would be brought back. For the third time I ask, do you agree to changing the word from "terminated" to "discontinued" for now? BelloWello (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say "discontinued". The evidence for temporary stems from the fact that "this may not be the end". I don't know about you but for most people that means temporary rather than long term. Do you agree in changing it to "suspended" as the source says? If not I could probably go ahead and change it since that's the direct title itself. Fountainviewkid 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture. No, you cannot go ahead and change something like that which is currently under discussion without consensus. BelloWello (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How can you object to what the title of the source says??? You said to use the source. Well I'm doing that. The source says "suspended" but in the title and in the text. There should be no dispute here. You can find a different source if you want, but until then we should use the text of the source. If you object to using the source material then that's an objection to the Wikipedia policy. I can't help if you object to the policy. Fountainviewkid 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting coming from someone who is currently arguing he should able to use a source that is not reliable under wikipedia policy on another article. As I said in my previous statement: "I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture." Suspended implies a set amount of time, which the article does not give us. Hence, it is most accurate to simply state that it was "discontinued," as you said above, "We know that it was halted or "discontinued," so why not just say that? BelloWello (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting indeed since you've been pushing that the source should be used word for word. I say we use the terminology of the source. That is the policy on here is it not? Hypocrisy goes more than other way obviously. Fountainviewkid 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to use the exact words used in the source, we convey the meaning of the source: As my previous post said: "I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture." Suspended implies a set amount of time, which the article does not give us. Hence, it is most accurate to simply state that it was "discontinued," as you said above, "We know that it was halted or "discontinued," so why not just say that?" BelloWello (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we convey the source's meaning? It's stated twice that the program was "suspended" and the article hints that this "may not be the end". To say it was "discontinued" is to be rather dishonest to the source, intent, and meaning. Fountainviewkid 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should convey the source's meaning. That's what I've been saying all along. The meaning is that it was "discontinued," as you said. Hence, whether or not it "may not be the end," the fact remains that it was "discontinued" at that point. You can add a caveat saying that there was the possibility of it restarting if you want, but don't try to make it sound like it was well planned. BelloWello (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The source's meaning was "suspended" something it stated quite clearly. Discontinued gives a false understanding. It was "suspended" not discontinued. By saying something is "suspended" does not mean you are saying it was planned. Plenty of students get "suspended" and I'm pretty sure at least some of them didn't have that as their plan. Fountainviewkid 20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You yourself said it is clear it was discontinued. You unwittingly helped back up my point, a student suspended from school knows exactly how long a suspension will last, suspension usually implies having at least some idea when it will be over, there is no reason to believe that was the case at Southern, the article leaves the impression they were scrambling to find a way to restart the program. In this case, suspension meant they were discontinuing it with the intent of finding a way begin it again. If you'd like, you can state it like that, "discontinued" but that the school was "actively working to restart it" or something like that. That would be an accurate portrayal. BelloWello (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Argue with the source that you were previously defending. I take back the statement about it being discontinued as that is also unclear and rather misleading, especially if it is currently operating which it may in fact be. There is good reason from the source to believe the suspension was not permanent and good reason to doubt that the program was actually "discontinued" as you would like to wrongly assert. As I said USE THE SOURCE! The source says "suspended" but in title and in text. "actively working to restart" maybe could work as well since it demonstrates that this wasn't meant to be an "end".Fountainviewkid 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As you previously believed, "discontinued" is an accurate description of the source. We don't have to use the exact words as long as it conveys the idea, which is "discontinued" while the school worked to "restart" it. BelloWello (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No I've argued that "suspended" or "temporarily suspended" were better choices, but thanks for the attempt at trying to read my mind. I say use the exact words if the convey the meaning well, which they do. Very well in fact. What's so wrong with using the source's own words? Isn't that the highest verifiability? Fountainviewkid 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I say use the words that describe the meaning best, which is "discontinued" with the stipulation that the school will "work to restart," completely accurate and reasonable taken from the source. What exactly is the problem with that approach? BelloWello (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I say use the words that describe the meaning best, which is "supspended" with the stipulation that the school will "work to restart," completely accurate and taken directly from the source. What exactly is the problem with that approach? Fountainviewkid 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Discontinued is clearer with the stipulation that the school is working to restart it. Stop trying to minimize everything here. You even admitted in a moment of truth that it was accurate. BelloWello (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No it's false. "Suspended" is much clearer and it is the terminology of the source. I say trust the source since that what Wikipedia is supposed to do. No in a moment of error I said something wrong. Fountainviewkid 21:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Discontinued w/ the restart designation is clearer, gives the reader a fuller picture and is fully verifiable from the source. BelloWello (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, "Suspended" is a better word and is used in the source. Discontinued gives a confused picture. Fountainviewkid 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, although suspended is used in the source, as you said previously, discontinued is also accurate and gives the reader a better view of what actually happened. The article is a lot longer than we will devote to the issue here, we don't have to use its wording, we just need to convey the message, which discontinued does aptly. BelloWello (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No Suspended is a better term to use. I never said "discontinued" was a better term either. The wording of the article conveys the message the best. Fountainviewkid 3:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are we arguing over such a simple thing? YOU WANT the term "SUSPENDED," I prefer the term "DISCONTINUED." In good faith, I offered the compromise of saying the most accurate, "discontinued" with the school "working to restart." If you don't like that compromise, I prefer the current wording to suspended, hence, I will resist changes from that wording, meaning, under WP:BRD you cannot change the words. So do you like the compromise "discontinued" and "working to restart" or do you want to keep the word "terminate?" Which is it going to be? Because you are NOT going to convince me to use suspended. BelloWello (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You offered the compromise? To what? To change it to your still false wording? I believe we should go with the source which says "suspended". It's very ironic that on Wiki you want us to say a program which is currently running has been "discontinued". I don't know but that seems a little bit false. Once the article can be edited I believe we should go ahead and change it to the source wording. Other than you, everyone else on here seems not to disagree, especially those who are more knowledgeable about the situation. Fountainviewkid 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You wanted to use the misleading word "suspended." I argue for the word "discontinued." In a good faith attempt to bridge the difference, I suggested "discontinued" with the school "working to bring back" the program. Since you are not amendable to compromise, I say we just keep the language the way it is. I remind you that under WP:BRD the onus is on the person arguing for a change to get clear consensus before making the change. There is no such consensus at this point, and a large number of single area accounts don't change that. Do you have a source for it currently running? DO YOU? If you don't, then it's speculation, and it's completely irrelevant to us here. If you think there is consensus for the change, make a request for edit. BelloWello (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to use the word from the source! What's so misleading about that? You're the one being misleading by using a word that is not in the source and conveys a different meaning. May I remind you that clear consensus doesn't have to be achieved, or else Progressive Adventist would still be in the title with Cottrell. I especially don't need it when using the source itself. I have many sources, though none of them are currently in "print". There is a "consensus" with all except for you. This change is warranted and should happen. Stick with the source, not your opinion.Fountainviewkid 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Clear consensus does have to be achieved when making changes that are not agreed to. "Consensus" without x, is not consensus when there are two or three active editors. Progressive was removed because YOU ADDED it without consensus, so you are again making unnecessary comparisons. Instead of bringing up separate issues everywhere, perhaps you should just focus on each issue individually. BelloWello (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have unarchived this discussion since an editor insists consensus has been reached for his change, I fail to see the consensus. Hence, I continue my contention that discontinue is the most accurate portrayal. My logic is laid out clearly above, I am interested in hearing a well-thought out policy argument why this is unacceptable? BelloWello (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus for "suspended." I recommend that both of you do not start edit warring over this again. The community is becomming quite fed up with this and if edit warring resumes I would not be surprised if it led to topic bans for both of you. Lionel (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And where, may I ask, is this consensus? This is the only discussion I can find on this topic. So what we have is an editor with a conflict of interest who started a thread (and never participated in discussion over exact wording), then Fountainviewkid and I going back and forth on this. So please point me to where this consensus was reached, Lionelt, because I don't see it. BelloWello (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello: Simba, Fountain and myself (Lionelt) all feel that "suspended" is the best representation of the source. All 3 us us have reverted you on this. As of now this is consensus. It is not 100%, but it is the overwhelming majority. If you feel otherwise feel free to persuade us that your position is an improvement of the article. There appears to be a slow edit war emerging over this and it must stop. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Dean of the School of Nursing has challenged the accuracy of what we have written here at Wikipedia, I think that is good reason to comment out the whole section until we can verify the facts in a manner suitable to wikipedia standards and in keeping with what seems to be the facts of the situation. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the actual facts we can determine through research are, what matters is what can be cited to reliable sources. An email to an anonymous contributor is not a reliable source and is irrelevant to the discussion. However, if we're using personal secondhand knowledge of the program, I talked to my friend (a nursing student there) last week and she said that they were still trying to restart it and the program they have right now is a pilot program. However, that is as irrelevant to article development as the email because no reliable sources have reported on it. Hence, until that time, it does the reader the most benefit to say it was discontinued, however, since that is not agreeable, I have used a quote from the source that SAU "put the breaks on" its program. Either way, if it is impossible to achieve consensus for that wording, I insist we revert to the previous wording of "terminated" until consensus is reached since that was the original stable version. BelloWello (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that emails don't provide citable sources. However, both the emails mentioned can and should influence our thinking as we proceed. For example, once I read about the Mary Walker Towers I went back to the December 7 source and realized that we could use the Dean's forward thinking to get us closer to what has been reported in the emails. I went ahead and tweaked the info based on the Pulse report. This does not create any more reliance on the emails than before but I have allowed my belief in the emails authenticity to move me along in my editing the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

For inclusion later

From Adventist Today, this little tid bit on rules at Southern:

The church doesn't have an official stand on engagement rings. It used to be that even wedding rings were looked down on in the Adventist Church, falling into the category of adornment. In fact, some churches didn't allow men or women to hold church office if they wore a wedding ring. However, in 1986 that rule was changed, and now the church manual says wedding rings are acceptable. Engagement rings have never been mentioned-the church hasn't felt the need to address the issue yet, says Armando Miranda, General Conference vice president and chairman of the church manual.

Among Adventist colleges, however, policies are inconsistent across the board. The Southern Adventist University handbook, for example, prohibits jewelry on campus in any form, engagement rings included-a girl gets fined if a dean catches her wearing one. But Andrews University calls both engagement rings and wedding bands "modest symbols of marriage," while Pacific Union College just "encourages" students to be "jewelry-free."

"There shouldn't be a blanket statement that you can't wear your engagement ring," Fellows says. "I am glad Andrews has that policy because they let you choose...You're a grown up; that shouldn't be dictated by other people."

But in the end, most guys agree that buying or not buying an engagement ring for their future fiancée should be up to them and their special someone-not a rule imposed by a church, a school or a friend.

When the article is unprotected, this reliably sourced tid bit about life at Southern should be integrated. BelloWello (talk)

Suggested wording

Southern's emphasis on "conservative religious and social practices" spills over into student life. Jewelry is not allowed on Southern's campus in any form, engagement rings included. Students are fined if found to have violated the ban.

Comments

The above section would lead the Student Life area. If anyone has concerns, let's discuss it now. BelloWello (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hatting comment irrelevant to proposed addition.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interesting that many students still love Southern and their experience there. It seems highly unusual to have such strict rules for university age students. But, student life involves more than these eccentric rules. The same is true for Southern's history.

At some point I would like to develop a full balanced history of Southern. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hatting content that does not contribute to development of article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I second DonaldRichardSands (talk). Some users are only posting one side on Southern. [User talk:Fountainviewkid|Fountainviewkid]] 17:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainviewkid (talk • contribs)

Edit protected Please add the content above under "Suggested wording" as the lead to the "Student life" portion of the article. The first citation used is the same as the one used in the lead so it would be nice if they could be consolidated under ref. naming. Thanks! BelloWello (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi BellowWello. These strict rules of Southern certainly are interesting and should be included. But, if we are interested in showing a full and balanced view of student life at Southern, we need to also provided cited examples of other aspects of student life. When I attended there, I lived with friends in the community, not in the dorm. When my fellow students found out that the Greek teacher liked my work, I was invited to join the men's dorm translation committee. Our task was to translate the Testament of Abraham. This committee work was also a part of student life. The Columns journal might provide other citable examples of student life. Many students who attend Southern love doing so. There is something about the place which is very positive, unlike some of the strict rules such as no engagement rings. To give a solid article about Southern, we need to provide a full picture of life there. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Users fail to agree on temporary compromise. Under wiki policy, current wording will have to stay in until an agreement on final wording is complete. BelloWello (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

---

While this issue is discussed further, I would like to seek compromise to make the following change to this line:

"Southern terminated its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010." → "Southern discontinued its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010, at that time, school officials stated they were actively working to restart the program."

This is a compromise between my suggestion for improvement, which was to simply swap out the word "discontinued" for "terminated," and user Fountainviewkid's insistance that the word "suspended" be used to substitute the same. This wording makes clear that the school intended for the lapse in the program to be temporary, as Fountainviewkid seems to have intended with his word choice, but makes clear that it was a "put the brakes" on stop in the program when it occurred, as my wording clarified.
This change does not preclude further discussion on the wording, I am simply floating it as a temporary compromise as the final wording is ironed out. BelloWello (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest using the terminology of the source itself which says "suspended" both in the title and the text. No where is the term discontinued or implied. I would argue this is a compromise between noting that the suspension was "temporary" and BelloWello's suggestion that "discontinued" should be used. Especially as we have other users stating that the program has no longer even been "suspended" and is back up, something the source also hints at.Fountainviewkid 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not have sources for it being back up. If you cannot agree to the compromise, I guess the article will have to stay as is until there is consensus for a change, or do you agree that the compromise version is better than the current version and will you allow it to be used until a final compromise is reached? It was discontinued at one point, that needs to be made clear. It also must be made clear that the school considered it temporary and was working to restart it. But let me repeat, this thread is not for discussion on a final wording for the section, start a new thread for that. This is simply a proposed temporary solution until a final one is ironed out. The question is whether we will, (1) use the compromise above while discussing a final version, or (2) leave the wording as is until a final version is agreed upon. Which will it be? BelloWello (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise! Using the source wording, which truthfully should be no compromise but hey not everyone likes Wiki's standards on using sources. Your "compromise" version is NO compromise. It's just as problematic and false as the current terminology. The question is whether we will we will use the source wording or not. You don't want to use the source wording, I (and others) think we should. I say as a compromise use the source wording until we get solid evidence that is is no longer "suspended".Fountainviewkid 20:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your compromise is simply doing what you've wanted the whole time. That is not a compromise, and your position is not more supported by any relevant policies than mine is. There is no reason to continue this discussion. You have failed to accept a reasonable compromise and that's that, the current wording will have to stay put until we come to an agreement on new wording. If you ever want to agree to it, feel free to reopen this thread. I would have thought you would accept this as a temporary agreement as we continue discussions since it is closer than the current wording to your preferred version. Oh well. If you want to seek a change to the current wording, please start a new thread for that. BelloWello (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nursing

Regarding this edit, may I ask why the Nursing Program merits inclusion over all the others? We're not here to provide a WP:DIRECTORY. BelloWello (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be removing this information as a violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Please discuss it on this page and achieve consensus before reading it. Since we already provide the number of degrees, there is no reason to provide details for just one department. BelloWello (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a Start class article. As it develops the other schools and departments will be added. It is typical for university articles to describe their academic areas. This content is relevant and does not violate WP:DIRECTORY. Lionel (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when is a listing of programs (products) appropriate under wikipedia policy when it is not received mention in third party sources? BelloWello (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to WP:NOTDIR #5, that refers to product prices. Your suggestion that the Nursing Program is a product is interesting, however I disagree with it. It is an important component of the university. Lionel (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What product does a university offer? Degrees. So why is a list of product/degrees that haven't received coverage in reliable sources notable? Again, is it your position that every department in a university inherently deserves its own section in the article? There are currently 21 undergraduate departments at SAU, do each deserve a section? BelloWello (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In any event, the policy applies to prices. There is no prohibition on adding products to an article, even if the Nursing Program was a product. Lionel (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So you support 21 sections of that size based on only Southern's website? BelloWello (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(more or less answered in radio sstation) Lionel (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it hasn't been. Do you support 21 sections of the size of the edit for each of the departments? BelloWello (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So... We're agreed that WP:DIRECTORY refers to product prices and as long as pricing isn't included this has no bearing on the Nursing Program? Lionel (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should reply to my previous question. BelloWello (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Numbers

May I ask for an explanation why this belongs in the lead? I don't think it should be there per WP:LEAD. BelloWello (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Facebook

Regarding this edit, facebook pages may not be included as an external link per WP:FACEBOOK. Please kindly remove it or provide an explanation? BelloWello (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Radio station

Regarding this edit, why does WSMC-FM deserve its own lvl 2 header section in the article on Southern when it already has its own article? BelloWello (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it is due weight. The radio station is notable. This is a Start class article. As it expands, it will be obvious that the article is best served by in depth treatment of the station.Lionel (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Due weight is about opinions/viewpoints. This isn't about a viewpoint or an opinion but about whether an entity that has its own article deserves this treatment. BelloWello (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Due weight also applies to "aspects": "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. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." My position is that a school of a university is significant to the university. Lionel (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So your position is that every department is inherently notable because they have a page on the school's website? That sounds like a way to get a very bloated article. BelloWello (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Most universities are composed of a number of "schools" which cater to general areas of study. My alma mater, a large research univ, had less than 10. I do not think a sentence or 2 about departments would lead to bloat. If it does it could be trimmed. Lionel (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 21 at southern, do each deserve a mention in the lead and a two paragraph section devoted to them? List here. BelloWello (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Those appear to be majors. I'm referring to schools e.g. College of Letters and Arts, School of Engineering, School of Fine Arts, etc. These schools in a typical univ. administer the majors under their purview. And no, in general an article should not discuss individual majors offered by a univ. Lionel (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The 21 categories at the top seem to be departments, the majors are not what I am referring to. BelloWello (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Major schools, determined by consensus, should have a sentence or 2 in the academics section of the article. And probably not a mention in the lede. Lionel (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The nursing school currently had quite a bit more than the sentence or two suggested, and we don't need to summarize the catalogue here. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Working to upgrade articles

Lets remember the purpose is to make better and upgrade the articles in Wikipedia, to give others a balanced picture of what is being written about. Lets see if we can improve this article with good content and facts, not inflammatory and offensive words or attacks. Thanks..Simbagraphix (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Care to reply to any of my messages that you have studiously ignored? BelloWello (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets try to make a article which shows a balanced view of the campus and its students and staff, that we can all contribute and work to improve, and keep the offensive words to a minimum please. I have to shut down but will discuss the page with you tommorow if thats ok, Thanks...Simbagraphix (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Those messages were there while you made the changes you did. Please discuss FIRST before making changes next time. Yes, if tomorrow, you could explain all your edits that would be very good. BelloWello (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, before you make any edits, it would probably be a good idea to read the policy on reliable sources. Your edits seem easy on those. BelloWello (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said the article should reflect a balanced view of the campus and its students and faculty/staff, not some isolated incident with dubious importance or offensive language. You dont do any part of them justice of the true nature of the college, or its people when that is done. So lets try and upgrade and give true balanced picture of the institution, put that into the article71.54.21.80 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, please provide a reason as to why the nursing program is notable. I don't see any sources independent of the subject reporting on it. Also, why do the number of majors, etc. belong in the WP:LEAD? Finally, "southern charm" should not be included since that is undue promotional material and is only sourced to the school website. It would be notable if Spectrum or Adventist Today or some other publication independent of the subject mentions it. BelloWello (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Southern Charm. As I briefly looked for an independent salute to SAU's Southern Charm, I have noted that almost everyone in the South claim Southern Charm for their area or institution. Thus, Southern Charm can be expected at Southern. Perhaps the claim is self-serving, but it is also true simply because SAU is in the South. Nothing to urge re: text of article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming southern charm is promotional in nature, we're not here to promote southern but to provide a neutral encyclopedic article with secondary sources. BelloWello (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Providing a balance and full view

Hi BelloWello,

My comments in the section above did not seem to be accepted in that section, so I am adding them here. At some point I would like to develop a full balanced history of Southern. The strict rules of Southern certainly are interesting and should be included. But, if we are interested in showing a full and balanced view of student life at Southern, we need to also provide cited examples of other aspects of student life. When I attended there, I lived with friends in the community, not in the dorm. When my fellow students found out that the Greek teacher liked my work, I was invited to join the men's dorm translation committee. Our task was to translate the Testament of Abraham. This committee work was also a part of student life. The 'Columns' journal might provide other citable examples of student life. Many students who attend Southern love doing so. There is something about the place which is very positive, unlike some of the strict rules such as no engagement rings. To give a solid article about Southern, we need to provide a full picture of life there.

In the Spring 2011 edition of 'Columns' there are featured aspects of Student life: Enrollment at Southern is 3000+. One article related to Student Life features what are called Life Groups, twenty of these are meeting on campus. citation: Baerg, Angela. Small Groups on a Growing Campus. Columns, Spring 2001, p. 6. Southern's recent involvement with the Jeopardy program certainly must have influenced student life and conversations. See Columns Spring 2011 p. 16. There are other aspect of student life which could add to a full picture of Southern. Adventists, generally, are not good at reporting controversy among themselves. MacDonalds isn't, either. lol. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Donald,

I agree that some other aspects of life should be included. If someone has a source for their intramural sports program, that could certainly use a source. I've scoured the internet looking for sources about life at southern and have posted what I've found. I don't know whether a school newspaper will provide due weight to anything it covers. We'll see. Regardless, because of the controversy on this article, I really don't plan to make many more changes.. I'm planning to just continue the discussions on the talk page and pop in once in a while with an edit on the article. I think any change to the article needs to get full consensus here before going in (not to say that I think reliably sourced tid bits about student life will be controversial). My project right now is to finish off that article on Larry Geraty we've been working on, and then possibly one on Albion Field Station, which seems super interesting. BelloWello (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Commenting out

I commented out the number of staff the school has from the info box because it was unsourced and seems inaccurate. Please feel free to re-add if you have a source. BelloWello (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just added citations for student enrollment, faculty and staff numbers. The SDA Statistics citation is ideal, IMO. The Columns citation is more up to date and claims an over 3000 number. The SDA statistics for 2009 list student enrollment at 2891. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That works for me! We just need reliable sources for everything. BelloWello (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New information

I just added to the article that Southern is considered the most conservative Adventist school. This may seem readily apparent, but I think it is important to spell it out, especially considering we have a straight statement from an official website of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists casually stating this. BelloWello (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Southern certainly is conservative. I wonder how conservative it is compared to other Adventist schools around the globe. I have noticed that Adventists from the Philippines, South America, and the Caribbean seem to be quite conservative. How do Adventist schools in those countries compare to Southern? The 'engagement ring rule' provides further evidence of Southern's conservative nature. Yet, there are other facts which make one wonder how conservative is it really. How does it compare to the uniquely established school known as Weimar? I am okay with your wording. Just musing further. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt it's as conservative as Hartland College for example... but the NAD source did say it was "our most conservative" school, so I mean, maybe it would be better clarified later on that it is the "most conservative school run by the Adventist church in North America?" Obviously, this would be undue in the lead but would probably be good in the ideology section? Thoughts? BelloWello (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am okay the way it is. I have considered wording such as, "one of the most conservative", or "intentionally conservative". I suspect that Southern knows its reputation and is pleased with the niche that it has found. I looked over the Adventist Forum citation. A biology professor has led the way in starting the chapter. If this AAF chapter is continuing to run with Administrative allowance, Southern's claim to the ultra-conservative label is in jeapordy. lol DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yeah, they definitely play their rep, I think. I doubt that the AAF chapter is officially sanctioned or sponsored. It's probably a student group in the strictest meaning of the word. BelloWello (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems difficult for a university that wants to remain ultra-conservative. The very nature of a university is that of freedom and inquiry. Some matters of inquiry can be upsetting to a conservative Adventist school. Adventist history, like all histories, morphs with the perspective of the historian. Facts once established are relentless. They demand rethinking, reordering of one's reasons for believing and behaving. Conservatives are not very good at this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Archeology

Are there any secondary sources for this? I don't have a problem with its inclusion, but I think we should have people other than Southern or Southern Union speaking about it if we include it (policy on self sources...). BelloWello (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I will work on the sources for this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a new source for the Archaeological section. The William G. Dever/Hasel connection is an important one in Archaeology and Adventism. The pottery collection alone brings Southern into the sphere of archaeological education. To become a great school, re: archaeology, Southern needs to develop governing committees, mentoring, and new leaders to take the program out of the hands of one man, such as Hasel, or in the case of University of Arizona, Dever. Andrews University seems to have accomplished the generation after generation task; Going from Horn, to Geraty, to those there now. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

True, I condensed the section down but think it was very well done. Thank you! Now if we could find some more secondary sources... `BelloWello (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

SAU as a source

Citing SAU as a source is perfectly acceptable per WP:SELFPUB "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" noting the 5 caveats. Bello's comment "I think we should have people other than Southern or Southern Union speaking about it if we include it (policy on self sources)" can safely be disregarded. Lionel (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Except the clear exception saying that "the material is not unduly self-serving;" which the statement my comment was based on fell under. Talking about "southern charm" is self-promotive. BelloWello (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Your comment was directed toward sourcing for Institute for Archeology. Lionel (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of improvements to the article. Do you have a specific suggestion on improving the article or is this just payback for me disagreeing with you on other pages? BelloWello (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we were discussing using SAU as a source until you made it personal. Lionel (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually came to say my comment can be disregarded. If my comment was personal, so was yours, and we both know which one came first. BelloWello (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment, and rightfully so, since it improperly cited policy. I wasn't referring to you personally. However, your comment directly attacks my motivations and does not AGF. Lionel (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. However, I have taken notice that you are now following me around to various threads I am involved in. I realize stalking is allowed on wikipedia but it is also quite obnoxious. Are you saying that anything that SAU says about itself is inherently due-weight and deserves to be in the article? BelloWello (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Following you around? Please don't flatter yourself. You placed the WPConservatism banner here. As soon as you did that the edit war here blew up the project's alert monitoring tool. If there is consensus to add everything that SAU says about itself, then so be it. Lionel (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. Fortunately, I know wikipedia policy and won't be making pointy additions, but think about all the ridiculously detailed additions that could be made! We need a line drawn, and that line is best drawn at "received coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources," imo. Do you have a better way to determine whether something belongs in the article? Perhaps we should include everything from these blogs on the site as well? Or where do we draw the line?BelloWello (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Obvious bias, Intense bias, etc.

I think the strength of a wikipedia article is in its facts acceptable to all. In a court system the prosecutors and defence attorneys work to create an agreed upon statement of the facts. This should be our goal for a wikipedia article, if possible. The citing of a source is only one necessary component. If the source is obviously a rant, or intensely biased, then even if the author is a respected scholar, the rant should be considered unacceptable. Change the wording, use more diplomatic understatement and the same thing can be said. Cottrell's essay cited in the Southern wikipedia article is very close to a rant. He gives away his bias by using inflammatory language. IMO, his intense bias is obvious by use of such words and phrases as Southern Bible belt obscurantism. 'Progressive' reformed conservatives like Cottrell could be as difficult as the obscurantists. Cottrell calls Hasel the ruthless personification of Adventist obscurantism. Perhaps this is good liberal, or progressive fun, but it is far from a scholarly way to write. I can hear the self-righteous liberals cheering as their iconic writer lambasts the self-righteous ultra-conservatives. The lynching of Gladson. I feel the term satisfies my consternation as to what happened to Gladson, but the term is not an accurate scholarly term. He describes him as closed-minded and ruthless as Torquemada. Again, Cottell is not writing for scholarship. Rather, he is playing to his readership and venting. Perhaps rightfully so, but to cite Cottrell in this mood as sound thinking scholarship is to misuse this particular Cottrell source. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require that sources come from a neutral point of view. Also, it seems only the first example you gave is included in the article, and it comes from a reliable source and is included with attribution, not the voice of wikipedia. BelloWello (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The article can be found at http://www.atoday.com/content/sanctuary-doctrineasset-or-liability-part-4 . I am okay with citing of biased authors, but I don't think that their statements should be cited as fact but rather opinion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The current format is "In 2001, noted Adventist scholar, the late Raymond Cottrell said that...," that is in-text attribution and makes clear it is just something he said, ie. an opinion. It doesn't make it fact. I would like to get some comments about Southern's ideology from the other end to counter balance it. Maybe Colin D. Standish has written something? BelloWello (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "said" does not imply fact rather than opinion. But when we cite something inflammatory without opposing balance, we show our own bias quite often. I will look for some opposing balance such as you suggest from Standish et al DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've looked quite extensively for counter opinions regarding Southern and haven't found them in any reliable sources or from any notable individuals, meaning it would be hard to claim legitimacy without them... That said, I made a few more edits to your changes, feel free to undue them if you think it obscures that it is an opinion (which I really don't see how anyone could miss, what else could it be?). BelloWello (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked over your newer wording. I think it helps. Look at it this way: When I cite from a source, it is because that source is sensible, factual and well-reasoned. If a source, like Cottrell's, is obviously inflammatory, I will make sure that my readership understands that I am presenting it because it is inflammatory. I am not presenting it because I think it is a level-headed carefully reasoned statement. I also keep in mind that what I write, or edit, for wikipedia is often about something that other people have an interest in fairness and goodwill. This is why some react when the fairness and goodwill seem to be missing. The masturbation debate is a good example of this concern for fair balance and goodwill. It is interesting that the teacher's simple admission caused such a furor but common sense tells me that there were bigger issues at play and that the media, including Spectrum, loves to exaggerate and build on a scandal. Wikipedia editors should resist the scandal frenzy and be known for carefully reasoned edits. As I get acquainted with the Wiki way, I am pleased with much of the end results and less of initial writings, including my own. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I like your approach. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what's going on. Cottrell is a lefty. He's bashing SAU which he feels is right wing. That kinda explains why an editor replaced "progressive" with "noted" in reference to Cottrell, and why an editor feels compelled to repeatedly insert "conservative" in the lede. Cottrell is being reinvented as "moderate" in order to exemplify how far right SAU is. Donald is not enthusiastic about the biased, rabid rhetoric and wants a rebuttal. Is this the gist of it? (Sounds like the section title should be Criticism, not Ideology.) Lionel (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what's going on? Do you? Your writing makes me think of a conspiracy theory. For me, there is nothing "going on". My nature is to seek for a consensus. (Wikipedia likes consensus work.) I am not aware of citation evidence that Cottrell was either left or right. The terms are labels; hard to prove labels at that. My response to "progressive" was after the label was challenged. Then I got thinking about the term "progressive". Cottrell lived before the term progressive was used to describe a type of Adventist. Now there are people who call themselves progressive. However, for me, the label implies an organized group or at least an intentional self-labeling. There are no citations available to define Cottrell as "progressive". There is plenty of evidence that he was "noted". If I suggest "noted" over "progressive" it is to move along a consensus. There is no attempt on my part to identify Cottrell as a moderate. In his later years, I don't think the label is accurate. Moderates don't write the things Cottrell wrote. He addressed matters that concerned him. His unscholarly opinions about Southern comes as evidence that he did not like Southern's ideology. Adventists don't usually "attack" each other in their own journals. Cottrell used Spectrum to opinionate about Southern. But, the term "progressive" is not accurate. We usually put forward our ideas based on what we believe is right. Let's cite what Cottrell said not label him. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lionelt on this one. It's not a conspiracy theory. I also believe that a certain editor is putting a certain view in to make conservatives appear "extreme" and liberals appear "moderate" or "respected". There is evidence that Cottrell was lefty (or progressive). Adventist Today which he helped found quotes itself as "progressive" and quotes him as supporting progressive values. LaSierra University a bastion of Progressive Adventism also calls him "progressive". Sure the terms may not have been used in those older days, but as recently as the 80's the labels did appear. Furthermore church historians have been going back and engaging in this labeling for purposes of classification. While Cottrell may not have labeled himself as a "progressive" enough secondary sources have that I would support that designation as accurate. Fountainviewkid 17:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to discuss any of the content changes you have been making, Fountainviewkid, instead of simply making them and reverting anyone who undos them. Remember, the onus is on you to show why your changes are necessary. I will ignore the first part of your message which does not pertain to improving content. As for the label, I am yet to see a single reliable source that labels him as progressive, I've seen sources that say that he holds "view x" and another source that says "view x"=progressive, but using that would be synthesis and original research. In order to WP:LABEL someone, we need a reliable source to do it for us. In any case, that is unnecessary on this article. If you want to go to Cottrell's article and label him progressive there, that can be discussed on that talk page. BelloWello (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WPConservatism

From WP:PROJGUIDE, "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." I'm here from WPConservatism and I say this is within our scope. Removing the banner is disruptive. Lionel (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lionelt, could you explain what you mean further. What is the 'banner' you are referring to? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody owns anything on wikipedia, I have joined your project. Hence, that argument does not apply. Under the clear guidelines of what constitutes our scope on our project page, I am removing the banner. It is not disruptive. BelloWello (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still need some help understanding what you two are discussing. What is the banner? Why is it important whether it is there or removed. What makes it disruptive? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. The article is still within scope and you cannot "force them [me] to remove it." Lionel (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing anyone. But it is not within scope because the scope only includes political conservatives. Hence, this article which has nothing to do with political conservatives and hence does not fall under the clear scope listed. If you don't like the scope, make a discussion at the project to change it. (Donald, we're discussing the project banner at the top) BelloWello (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope is not restricted to political conservatives. Lionel (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to go back to your about us and read it. BelloWello (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing the banner is interpreted as "forcing them to remove." You are clearly in violation of WP:PROJGUIDE. We can take this to Will Beback... but do you really want to do that? (I already know what he'll say.) Lionel (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's interpreting? I'm a part of the project and I object to the absolute disregard for the stated scope. Furthermore, as an adventist, I object to having this schools article placed in the same project category as hate groups like the Family Research Council. BelloWello (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So you're OK with taking this to Will Beback? Lionel (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I object to your twisting (or completely ignoring your scope) and acting like you own the project to pursue your agenda, whatever it is. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern referred to as Conservative, Strict, etc. in weak sources

I have been looking for solid sources which refer to SAU as a conservative school. Very little acceptable sources. However, I have run across some pretty strong blog sources. Dr. Bietz, President of SAU, has done a few things which have been criticized by avowed fundamentalist Adventists. At a fund-raiser for El Salvador, some of the students got animated to music. Bietz was criticized for allowing it. ANN reported Bietz' input into the creation debate at the 2010 General Conference: "In what some observers viewed as an attempt to stall the more critical aspect of the measure, Southern Adventist University president Gordon Bietz moved to divide the resolution. The motion passed, separating the affirmation of the 2004 statement from the reopening of Fundamental Belief 6 for review and rewriting, the latter to incorporate the intent of the 2004 statement. However, both parts of the now-divided measure passed with strong votes." http://www.educatetruth.com/news/ann-reports-on-affirmation-of-creation-and-fb-6-enhancement/

Then below in the comment section, views about Southern are stated:

Michael J. Cookenmaster, Ed.D. writes:

"I am concerned. We have chosen to send our daughter, who is an up-coming senior at Campion Academy, to Southern because of its historical, and traditional Adventist teachings. Dr. Bietz has me worried if we are making the right decision. My daughter, wife, and I need to take this next year into serious consideration and as a matter of prayer. "

Sean Pitman replies: "I can personally assure you that, despite the opposition of Dr. Bietz to the affirmation of creation at the GC session, SAU remains one of the strongest supporters of the SDA position on origins. The science faculty at Southern are extremely supportive of a recent literal 6-day creation and will only hire additional faculty who openly endorse the same. I’m not sure why there is such a disconnect between the science faculty at SAU and the president of SAU, but there evidently is…"

"Tom Zwemer - Sat, 02/19/2011 - 09:31 The recent videotaped episode at Southern has created quite a stir, far beyond the magnitude of the event. The causes are multiple, some with a considerable history. The image of Southern has been projected as fundamentally inclined, pompously and beastly pious, and harshly vindictive to any progressive thought or questioning of historic roots. The President has been quiet, subdued, and staid; at least that is the impression or projection in the “field”. The video thus came as an “eye opener”. Some heralded it as a breath of fresh air, others viewed in with shock and awe—as the slide into apostasy—and a direct fulfillment of prophecy. I have had a long history with both Southern and with the Bietz family: particularly the parents of the president and his brother, the physician. I have found them delightfully open, congenial, pragmatic, and open minded. I spent 11 years on the Board at Southern and each of my three children spent at least one year of college at Southern prior to transferring to LLU. The recent image of Southern has been refigured by the aggressive defense of Ellen G. White by Dr. Jud Lake. A stance so open and vigorous as to place the entire institution in a defensive position or mind-set: thus, making the video, even the more surprising: welcoming to some and a shock to others. I personally, view it as a mild tempest in a gym by a group of enthusiastic young people, looking for any excuse to express pent up energy. They found a “good cause” and a receptive administration. What makes it “news” is the prior image, cultivated carefully for the past 30 years. As a personal aside, given the general prior impression of the institution, I think it was good news—I was not surprised by the reaction from the “field”. Finally, Dr. Beitz, I knew your parents. They were great people, straight forward open Christians. They would have been proud. Tom Z."

Of course, these informal comments don't make good citation for an article but they certainly lend color to the discussion about Southern's ideology.

Dr. Bietz is showing himself to be more liberal than some people want for a SAU President. Thus, we have a current example of the tension possible at SAU re: Ideology. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I know there's criticism, the problem I run into is that they're not published in reliable sources.

"It is known for its emphasis on conservative religious and social practices." 'It is known' is not in the source, and it is a blog and should probably be removed. For now, I'm going to attribute it. The source used for "the most conservative" in the lede is a self published website. A SPS can only speak about itself. I'm removing it. Lionel (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the website, it is an official website of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, what you have here is the organization that (indirectly) owns SAU calling it the most conservative. It is certainly notable. You can remove "it is known" if you want, I originally wrote "it has been noted," maybe "Spectrum magazine noted it for.." would be good? But then, Spectrum is a reliable source so we have no reason to atribute since it is speaking in the voice of spectrum. Hey, Lionelt, you should try replying on the threads that are already there regarding this. Stop moving the conversation around to suit your purposes. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The website says "© 2011 North American Division Children's Ministries." Lionel (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Southern referred to as conservative" is the wrong thread????????? Lionel (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Stop moving the conversation around to suit your purposes" is WP:UNCIVIL. Please stop. Lionel (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

After further review, Bello may be correct, the website may be linked to SDA. (Shows you how much I know about SDA.) However, that brings up another issue: Bello is adamantly opposed to self-pub sources. By his own rationale, this source should not be included. Lionel (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Lionelt, there is nothing wrong with a primary source. Hence it should be reincluded. And yes, there are threads already for each of those specifics. here for the North American Division quote and here for the reliably sourced Spectrum Magazine designation for its emphasis. BelloWello (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

SAU and Adventist Children’s Ministries Association are different orgs. I believe SELFPUB applies to ACMA when it is speaking about ACMA. I don't think just because they share the same parent that they are considered the same for SELFPUB. What do you think? Lionel (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The North American Division (NAD) Office of Children's Ministry would be selfpublished in reference to any entity operated by the NAD which is in turn owned by the General Conference (GC), they are both just subsidiaries of the same entity (Adventist Church is set up like corporation, the Conference owns all the deeds to local church buildings, etc.). However, I think this particular case merits inclusion because (i) it is simply a statement of comparison of entities within the organization, (ii) neither the NAD or SAU has anything to gain by making such a comparison, and (iii) it does not compromise the NAD's objectivity to compare between entities that it has the same relation to each of them. Essentially, the source is simply making a statement of fact that SAU is the most conservative school run by the Church, nothing to gain or lose from that statement; neither is it promotional or advertising in nature. It is also inherently notable that it is called the most conservative among the system, I would say the same if the source called La Sierra least conservative. BelloWello (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: what if we put both quotes in Ideology, with attribution for both, and summarize in the lede with something like "... is considered a conservative school." Lionel (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

School of Journalism and Communication

The article for the School at one time was 14978 bytes. Then an editor started deleting entire sections per notcatalog, notadvertising, copyvio. When he got it down to 1927 bytes he tagged it for speedy deletion. Speedy was declined, it went to AfD, the result was "merged" to this article. Well, it was never "merged" to this article. We need to add the content before it was stubified by a certain editor, from this version. It will make a wonderful addition to Academics. Let's make sure not to plagiagize. Am I crazy or is the deletion of the Nursing Program and the radio station the same thing that happpened at School of Journalism and Communication? Lionel (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry for removing copyvio straight out of the catalogue. It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable to REMOVE copyright violations! BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is unnecessary, misplaced and counterproductive. I specifically stated that when we do merge the content, "Let's make sure not to plagiagize." I was in effect saying let's not make the same mistake of adding copyvio to this article as was done in the previous article. Lionel (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"We need to add the content before it was stubified by a certain editor" paraphrasing doesn't undo copyright vios. "Am I crazy or is the deletion of the Nursing Program and the radio station the same thing that happpened at School of Journalism and Communication?" After you've been accusing me of everything under the sun for those. That statement is unnecessary, misplaced and counterproductive. BelloWello (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you invoked WP:PARAPHRASE. Lionel (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing doesn't undo copyvio. Your condescending attitude is unnecessary, misplaced and counterproductive. BelloWello (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Scare quotes in lede

The material in the lede in quotes is not a quotation. A quotation must be attributed to the person who spoke it. Currently what we have are scare quotes. And scare quotes are not in the source, and should be removed. Any questions? Lionel (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what policies can you claim "should be removed" off of? I added quotes to specify that exact wording had been preserved. This is done on a number of articles. There is (to my knowledge) no policy that in text quotations be attributed in text, not just in the citation. Furthermore, using the exact wording from another source without quotes would be considered plagiarism. BelloWello (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE: "Quotations... provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better" and "Attribution should be provided in the text of the article." WP:MOSQUOTE: "attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section." (Since the person is not discussed attribution is necessary.) Thus, the phrases in quotes require attribution. Got it? Lionel (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't preclude using source wording without direct attribution. Stop your condescending attitude! BelloWello (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've provided 2 justifications which say quotes must be attributed. What policies can you claim "doesn't preclude using source wording without direct attribution?" Lionel (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tasering in Recent Events

This mention is inaccurate. The university officer didn't taser the individual, the Collegedale police officer did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixar (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This starts out "I am writing this letter in light of recent events that have strongly upset me..." and near the end "The author is apparently a university student." This is a "letter to the ediror" and fails WP:RS. I'm removing it. Lionel (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the school responded to it. It's commented out now, there should be another source that mentioned it... BelloWello (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Newfound collaboration

Thanks to lots of discussion, a series of compromises, a little WP:BRD, and remembering at all times the article comes first, we now have a page on it's way to becoming a respectable, neutral university article. Lots of stray tidbits have been integrated into logical sections, Academics has been expanded with sections for the Institute, Nursing and Visual Arts. The lede doesn't have scare quotes and a few NOTNEWS items are gone. Table of Contents/section titles have been overhauled. We can really do great work when we work together and refrain from edit warring. Again, thanks to everyone who made this major cleanup possible. Harvard University... watch out! Lionel (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Now if you'll excuse me, I heard there was something going on over at the Osama Bin Laden article... I'm going to go check it outLionel (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama, isnt he in a cave, living on goat cheese and berries....hmmm, whats this about a 'mansion..life of luxury'...But anyway, excellent job guys on the article, very good upgrades and a final balanced view that everyone can take pride in.....Simbagraphix (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Radio station

How can it be both owned by a private college and a public radio station? BelloWello (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi BelloWello. Note at this site: https://www.southern.edu/wsmc/about/Pages/historyofstation.aspx#1996 Up to 1996, WSMC seems to have been affiliated with NPR. In 1996, NPR went over to WUTC. I presume that the term "public radio" means NPR? Or, does it simply mean broadcast to the public. That would make all radio stations public. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the word "public" from the section until a source can be provided. BelloWello (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Matrimonal College

Is there a reason we need to include this nickname in the history? It is not encyclopedic and from a google search doesn't seem to have achieved wide (if any) usage in reliable sources. BelloWello (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have found one source at Adventist Archives:

Doris Burdick. Treasures Found on a Christian Campus. Southern Union Worker, March 1, 1986, p. 32.

I think we should make a distinction between "acceptable" sources and "reliable" sources. The blog references to "Southern Matrimonial College" convey a reliable bit of Southern's student life. But blogs are not "acceptable" sources. Perhaps Wikipedia will come to accept the reliability of some blog information. I do believe that this nickname of Southern was quite pervasive. I lived in Canada before going to school at Southern and we had heard the nickname in Canada. It was undeniably a significant part of Southern's reputation. While attending Southern, I became aware of the intensity which some of the students placed on their matrimonial hopes while at the school. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Burdick is RS. Lionel (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just searched through that document and nothing would come up for "Matrimonal" or "Southern M." Do you have a page number? BelloWello (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article is a primary source since it is published by the entity that directly owns SAU. BelloWello (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

redundant claim
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:PSTS "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" Lionel (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC) You posted that below as well. I see no reason to have the same discussion in two places. BelloWello (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Secret of the Cave

Can someone please find a secondary source that covers Secret of the Cave and its award? I can't seem to find one. BelloWello (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked over the citations on the Wikipedia article Secret of the Cave. There actually seems to be a significant number of citations possible. Also, Spectrum did a review or two. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to find one. Fancy that? I didn't even think to look at the film's article! BelloWello (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Change of wording in lead

User Lionelt thought it was necessary to remove quotations from the lead, dubbing them scare quotes, however, this fails to provide a rationale as to why it should say "focus on conservative values" instead of "emphasis on conservative religious and social practices" as the reliable source says. The source wording is more accurate, clear and we would be doing our readers a diservice by wording it differently. Hence, I will be reverting it to source wording. BelloWello (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think "fails to provide a rationale" is accurate taking into account all the time I invested in explaining my rationale above? Lionel (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You provided an (I believe invalid) rationale for removing the quotations from the lead, however, you never provided a rationale for changing the wording. BelloWello (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The title of the source and the text itself use this wording. Your example is less clear, not as professional and uses a phrase that is less common. The other users have all agreed that this is the best choice, therefore it should remain that way unless you can create a view of the users that is the opposite Fountainviewkid 00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Hey buddy, did you read the source? Because the wording that I took out is not in the source. BelloWello (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Read the title!! "Southern SUSPENDS Home Nursing Program" (my emphasis).Fountainviewkid 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Uh buddy, you have clearly shown that your reading comprehension is not very high. Please read the first message in this thread and then tell us what we're talking about. BelloWello (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Ah, I see. Sorry I was responding to another discussion. Fountainviewkid 01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Yes, that discussion is in another thread. I'm going to hat this. BelloWello (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are no valid arguments/rationales as to why a change away from the original source wording is necessary, I will revert the article to the source wording soon. BelloWello (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

1. I outlined the relevant policies here.
2. Multiple editors have restored my edit, and reverted yours. You do not have consensus. Lionel (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a separate issue. I conceded the "square quotes" issue to you because it wasn't worth the effort, nowhere was it discussed to change the wording away from source wording. I don't care who reverts what, it needs to be discussed if contentious. Consensus is reached on the talk page, not by counting edits on the article. BelloWello (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be reverting it back to source wording since no rationale as to why the original source wording was inappropriate has been provided. Please discuss before further changes. BelloWello (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Undo Refactor

Bello, why did you undo the refactor? Lionel (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not pertain to improving article content, and, hence, is off topic. BelloWello (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

Lionelt, out of curiousity, is there a reason you only mentioned the removal of redundancy in your edit summary for this edit but didn't mention your arguably more substantial addition of material to the lead? BelloWello (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't an addition, it was more of a revert of one of your edits, described as "correct to source." Lionel (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

It appears to me that there is an editor working against the established consensus of myself (Lionelt), Fountain, and Simbagraphix. This editor makes numerous and substantial changes. We have to edit the article back to the consensus, only for this editor to revert. Questions:

1. Do you agree that there is an editor working against consensus?
2. How do you suggest that we deal with it? Lionel (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the civilized thing to do is to agree to discuss differences here before we make controversial changes to the article. In other words, once a change has been disputed, the text should be restored to its reading before the dispute and then we should discuss here and seek for a consensus. We should agree not to add any disputed material until we reach a consensus on the wording. This calls for a sense of goodwill between us. Also, I have an interest in developing the history section of this article in a general approach unrelated to disputes. I don't think that those developing edits need a consensus before adding them. It is possible that even those can be disputed, though they usually aren't. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to working together. Why don't we view ourselves as an editorial committee addressing issues common to us? This committee will only seek to resolve differences, not to control edits that are undisputed. Wikipedia has lots of time. We don't need to rush things. Let's take advantage of our mutual interest in this SAU article and make it better because we discuss our differences. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Its hard to discuss when Simbagraphix simply reverts without ever discussing, and Lionelt simply makes condescending comments pretending he explained everything (when in fact he hadn't done anything of the sort) and Fountainviewkid simply insists on his version refusing to compromise. BelloWello (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Case in point, we had a large discussion above as to whether the word "masturbation" should be included in the title of the section. I simply dropped the subject since it became clear we were not getting anyway and allowed it to be removed and it wasn't cruical. As soon as it was removed from the title, certain editors removed the whole root cause (the spark that set it off) from the controversy opting for vague language. These types of changes need to be discussed before they are made, instead certain editors seem to believe that contrary to WP:BRD those that are reverting need to justify themselves. BelloWello (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed that Simba, Fountain and myself are not reverting each other. But all of us are reverting your edits? Why? Lionel (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made any substantial changes to the article since it has become contentious. So under WP:BRD, those that are making the change should start a discussion when their changes are reverted. BelloWello (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you are including in your "consensus" an editor who has not discussed a single change. BelloWello (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless a discussion starts here regarding one of the many changes made contentious changes made recently to the article without discussion, I will not responding to this thread that does not pertain to improving the article. Lionelt, may I suggest you read WP:SOAPBOX? BelloWello (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The changes are only contentious to you. Simba is correcting edits that were made against consensus. Lionel (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We had a consensus, and a balanced view, and a good article. We need to get back to that level and it seems there is one editor who needs work with the others to achived that from what is evident here and in the article. Lets get to work in a coloberative effort with everyone pitching in to make it better, not push a negative or offensive article. Simbagraphix (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone care to discuss content instead of making accusations? Changes were made without discussion, I reverted those changes, the onus is now on those making the changes to start a discussion as to why their changes are necessary. BelloWello (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Simba. Bello, the changes you are making are against consensus. The onus is on you to try to presuade Simba, Fountain and myself of the value of your positions. Lionel (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionel is correct in his assessment, we have to work together and the reverts on balanced and correctly documented entries must stop. Simbagraphix (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, under WP:BRD if you make an addition and it is reverted, the onus is on your to prove that your change is beneficial, so I ask again, where is the content discussion? BelloWello (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

When a valid addition is put in and you take it out and throw in a question in the talk page to cover yourself, that is not allowing for consensus to say the least. Simbagraphix (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your invocation of BRD is ironic to say the least:

• "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus"
• "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow"
• "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once" Lionel (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the record is clear, we were at a point where there was consensus, and it was reverted by one editor who has been working against the other editors with reversions and deletions. Simbagraphix (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Working to undermine consensus is disruptive. And it's been going on too long. So, what do we do about it? Warning on his talk page? RfC/U? ANI? ArbCom? Lionel (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with all the other editors on here but one. As the "victim" of a certain editor's accusations and attempts to block me, I certainly agree that one editor has caused many problems on this page. The rest of us seem to be united in working towards a consensus. I would support any one of the suggestions proposed by Lionel. It would only be fair considering all the reporting a certain editor did of those who disagreed with. Fountainviewkid 03:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction. You had a near consensus. Lionel, Simba and Fountainviewkid have not quite reached a full consensus because Bello is not on board. A real consensus will involve Bello as well. And, myself, I suppose. I think we need to consider locking the article until all four of you can agree. (I am willing to leave myself out of this.) A consensus is not always easily won. Sometimes it takes serious compromises and the article ends up more conservative than anyone wishes. But it is the only common ground. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are well considered, Donald. Though I hope this is not the case, I fear that we have reached the stage where "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." (WP:CON) It is important to get Bello on board, but should he choose to be intransigent, we have to keep in mind that "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." (WP:CON)

I find it laughable that User:Lionelt continues to claim consensus and that I am holding things up when my replies in numerous threads have not been replied to. I also find it amusing that consensus is found with editors who have not discussed a single content related question yet. Furthermore, a certain editor continues to claim primary sources a suitable when shown CLEARLY by two editors that they are simply not enough for inclusion in the article. BelloWello (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we were well on our way to consensus as you can see in my comments on 'Newfound collaboration', working toward a balanced and good representation of the university and its faculty, staff and students. But if you have one editor who only wants to write about murders, tasering, fires and other unpleasant or offensive issues and deletes or reverts anything else from others, well you can see the problem. If you wanted to write an article about St Judes Childrens Hospital, how many employees were murdered, or got tasered when employment was terminated, or were held up while off the Hospital grounds would not be representative of the Hospital or its work, and that seems to be a constant with BelloWello or he deletes any addition that does not present that view....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How can we even begin to respond to any content related questions when what was under discussion was already deleted, the content removed or changed into a completely different viewpoint, and using a post in the talk page does not give you permission to wipe out the other editors work. That seems to be how you work, post one entry in the talk page then immediately roam through article and make changes or deletions without waiting. It can take a few days of discussion to work consensus, dont just post a question in the talk page and go at it. Some of us work or have other important duties which do not allow us to just spend 24/7 on a talk page. Please be considerate of others time and access and not just post a question and wipe out sections at your leisure with no consensus....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Such is WP:BRD, you be bold and make the change, it is reverted, and then the discussion commences to seek consensus. What you are doing instead is make the change, it is reverted and a discussion started, and instead of participating in discussion, you simply revert the revert. The onus to prove the value is on those making the change. That would be you, Fountain and Lionelt. BelloWello (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets get it right, I put in additions and you deleted or reverted then put in a discussion to cover your tracks, we even had come to a good point were consensus was very close if not reached and you took out the additions, all the other editors saw it and the others can check the additions and see what was deleted outright with a quick post to cover the deed....It is clear which editor is working against consensusSimbagraphix (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding "spacing" edits to article

An editor who maxed out on his reverts for the day recently added a few "spacing" edits to the article. This had the effect of breaking up another editor's consecutive edits. He then filed a 3RR warning against the editor. Be careful. Admins are watching this article due to the recent edit warring and will block first and ask questions later. Lionel (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Perhaps a certain editor will try and block me again (for the 4th or 5th time). Fountainviewkid 03:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag bombing

The article has been tag bombed. Per WP:TAGBOMB "Tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing." Lionel (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose we remove the boxes (the large templates) and leave the inline tags. Lionel (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we substantially prune the number of primary/SAU-affiliated sources from the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I second above proposal by Hrafn. BelloWello (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:TAGBOMB is merely an essay. WP:PSTS is policy and states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Where a section is based solely or substantially on primary sources, it is in violation of that policy. Where these sources are affiliated with the topic, it is also likely to be in violation of WP:NPOV in that it will present the topic mainly, or entirely, from the topic's own perspective. I would suggest that these problems are far more urgent than the fact that some sections of the article have been tagged. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• As the only third party source for the 'School of Visual Art and Design' is IMDB (which is very mediocre both from a viewpoint of prominence and reliability), I would also propose removing that section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to work on the article and find secondary sources. However, the policy states "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Note that it does not state that "Where a section is based solely or substantially on primary sources, it is in violation of that policy." I do not think using the university for background information about itself is that big of a deal. Based on the policy, the primary sources are OK. Lionel (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It becomes a problem when the proportion of such material becomes excessive. If an article "should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", there is the clear implication that primary sources should not be used to any significant extent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I second Hrafn's proposal to remove the section. BelloWello (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

imdb is gone, so rationale to remove the section is moot. Lionel (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So now we have a primary source. Why don't you reply to Hrafn's comment above? Or any of the many threads I've begun with you. BelloWello (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lacking a reliable third party source to demonstrate its prominence, why should the article mention the 'School of Visual Art and Design' in preference to any number of other schools or departments? We cannot mention all of them without violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we should not pick and choose arbitrarily, so that leaves us the obvious metric of only discussing those that are discussed by third parties (a metric closely analogous to WP:DUE). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the proposal to prune primary/SAU-affiliated sources, if the source passes WP:SELFPUB then it is WP:RS per policy and should remain in the article. From SELFPUB "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities." Lionel (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SELFPUB more closely -- it explicitly demands that "the article is not based primarily on such sources." And you have not answered my question of "why should the article mention the 'School of Visual Art and Design' in preference to any number of other schools or departments?" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is not based primarily on SAU-related sources. By my count the article has 39 sources (excluding Wedgwood). Of those 7 are SAU-related. 82% of the sources are non-SAU. Lionel (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the school is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, media outlets owned by the church are SAU-related. I count well over 15 of those. BelloWello (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you counting Adventist Today? It's editorial policy is "Following basic principles of ethics and canons of journalism, this publication strives for fairness, candor, and good taste. The editors realize that many church members prefer an official presentation of news and issues, and respect that view. Adventist Today is for people who prefer to think issues through for themselves on the basis of all the available facts." And it's progressive. Lionel (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That a source is not "SAU-related" does not mean that it is not a WP:SPS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't which schools should/should not be included, the question is: is the content reliably sourced and is the source verifiable. Is there a policy restricting the amount of sourced content in an article? No. If 21 schools are reliably sourced, and there is consensus, then the article will have 21 schools. Lionel (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." "Is there a policy restricting the amount of..." WP:PRIMARY & WP:SPS in the article? Yes there is! If you try to include material on all 21 schools based upon primary/SPS coverage, you've got a good chance of being hit with an RFC seeking wider scrutiny of the decision. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is a school article. I think WP:UNIGUIDE can provide some insight: "It would be appropriate to mention the notable academic divisions (such as faculties/schools/colleges)" [3]. Lionel (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and let's also remember that third-party notice is Wikipedia's benchmark for what is "notable". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well having murders, tasering, fires and other crimes and misdemeaners, may be 'notable' or 'National Enquirer' material, which while 'merely being true', or even 'verifiable' lending itself easy to insert, but is it represantive of the institution, its staff or its students. I think you see my point, you have to primarily write about what the institution is about, not just use incendiary or offensive words or events. Thats why consensus balances out the article and we had come to a point that the majority of editors were in agreement, and to wipe that out and justify with a quick question on the talk page just does not seem correct....Just looking at and pruning primary/SAU-affiliated facts will take good content out for no reason, we need to look carefully and see what is representative and neutral and what is not or just distorts or 'National Enquirer material ad nauseam', and prune some of that material to start with as we work on a consensus.....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the SAU site needs to be cited with care. Some facts on the SAU cite, i.e. programs, etc. are quite reliable. Afterall, families interested in the school must rely on the information available on the site. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I recently went through the process of choosing a school. You would be shocked how unreliable college websites are. BelloWello (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You may disagree, but WP:SPS and WP:UNIGUIDE support Donald, as do myself and Simba. Lionel (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The School of Visual Art and Design now has 4 secondary sources. This satisfies the objection re: imdb. If there are no further objections we'll consider the matter of inclusion settled. Lionel (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

UNIGUIDE is not a policy. You have not replied to Hrafn's arguments against inclusion of SPS, hence, your assertions are of no value. BelloWello (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources

Primary sources are not all equal. Some autobiographies slant the truth. Bello has mentioned Adventist sources as biased toward Southern. In a way, this is true. Adventists do not usually publish criticism of its own entities and people in their periodicals. We cannot use Adventist publications to get to the bottom of a controversy. But, this does not mean that all Adventist publications should be ruled out as invalid sources. As I work with Adventist Archives, I am impressed with the opportunity before us in preparing sound historical studies on hundreds of Adventist people and entities. Much of the information published in Adventist periodicals can be used to document the history under study. Even a website produced by Southern is not useless, but it is not the best NPOV source. Southern will not present criticism or problems. It is not their job. However, they do provide some neutral, unbiased information. An encyclopedia should report on all major aspects related to the subject of an article. If we did not have Spectrum, Adventist Today, the works of the Standish brothers, or Adventist Affirm, etc. we would not have very much source material for controversies. Wikipedia editors all have personal biases. Their task is to avoid uncited opinions or assertions. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you bring up excellent points and rather than move rashly, all the editors should be allowed to present their veiw on the matter before the article is changed or content taken out. Simbagraphix (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If we truly want to build by consensus then we should have at least an informal agreement that we will not move forward on a controversial statement without 100% agreement. It may be necessary to "comment out" highly controversial material, discuss the matter, and then move forward with that 100% agreement. This is a much more difficult process than an edit war but the end results are much more satisfying. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that in this day and age, any major institution will produce masses of promotional or semi-promotional information about itself in its own, or affiliated, print and online publications. Per WP:PSTS & WP:SELFPUB it is clearly Wikipedia policy not to allow such self-assessments to predominate. For one thing, there will always be far more of it available than third-party material, so allowing it a significant foothold will pretty much guarantee that more neutral and/or more prominent third-party views will get shouted down. Yes, WP:UNIGUIDE says we should "mention the notable academic divisions" -- these would be divisions that third parties state are outstanding (most probably for producing outstanding research -- NOT for such red herrings as "murders, tasering, fires and other crimes and misdemeaners" -- WP:NOTNEWS applies there -- unless the scandal was directly relevant to the division's academic reputation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's rules arise out of common sense, it seems. The school's programs are matters of fact. The school's assessment of itself is not useful on Wikipedia. Others can assess. I am assuming that third party mention includes any source not originating from those employed at Southern. For example, the Review and Herald or Southern Union Worker are SDA periodicals but not directly connected to Southern. You have mentioned murders, tasering, fires and other crimes and misdemeaners as not rising to notability status. Perhaps. Yet, it seems to be expected that all of the specifically mentioned events would have a profound influence on campus. This is where third party documentation would be especially helpful; not of the event but of the event's impact on school life. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • (i) I am assuming 'affiliated' coverage (as mentioned in {{primarysources}}) would include any source whose shared (e.g. religious) affiliation with SAU would suggest a reasonable expectation that it would give SAU greater or more favourable coverage. The closer the affiliation, the more reasonable the expectation. This would certainly include Adventist newspapers and blogs. (ii) All localities experience a degree of crime. Often these individual crimes will be reported in the news media. Unless the severity or prevalence of these crimes is sufficient to warrant serious secondary source discussion associating them with the locality, I can see no reason not to treat it as WP:NOTNEWS -- and would suggest that you will rarely, if ever, see them mentioned. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the notability of university divisions (which is how it originally arose in #Tag bombing above -- as a red herring). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Hrafn takes it further than I do, I would allow sources like Spectrum Magazine and Adventist Today since they are independent of the church, however, I see the wisdom in Hrafn's position as well. BelloWello (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is where we stand on sources, as I see it:

SAU is OK: Lionelt, Donald, Simba

Adventist Today et al OK: Lionelt, Donald, Simba, get ready... Bello

All unacceptable: Hfran -- Please DO NOT misrepresent my comments -- it is in violation of WP:TALK Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionel (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think on Adventist Today et al we have consensus. Hfran raises important points, but I don't see any reason why those sources should be tagged en masse, so I'm going to remove those tags. If an editor has an objection to a specific citing of a specific source by all means let's talk about it.Lionel (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not have consensus. An editor is still objecting, and per DonaldRichardSand's comments, we want full consensus before making changes. Furthermore, I object to your removing tags of self-published sources as well, per the arguments set forth above against self-published sources which you have simply ignored rather than answering. BelloWello (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn's stand on sources

As Lionelt has seen fit to misrepresent my views, it behooves me to state them here:

1. I do not think that Adventist sources are "All unacceptable"
2. I do think that using a preponderance (or even too significant a minority) of such sources is unacceptable, per WP:PSTS & WP:ABOUTSELF.
3. Where noteworthiness or bias of the information is not an issue, I think it's perfectly acceptable to use Adventist sources. Where they are an issue, the closeness of affiliation versus the degree to which they are an issue needs to be considered.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was only attempting to summarize where we were: I didn't intend to misrepresent you. "As I see it" refers to my understanding. Lionel (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

A majority of editors find SAU to be an acceptable source. A minority has stated concerns that SAU is promotional and that the article should not be based on such sources, and have liberally tagged the article. There appears to be an impasse.

I propose that the specific objection to each individual citation of SAU be listed here, and it's disposition discussed, similar to WP:RSN. Individual citations not brought here will have their 'primary source' tag removed after a reasonable time. Lionel (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, wikipedia works by consensus, not majority rule. The tags should remain until the concerns expressed are addressed. They have been addressed 'en masse,' and there is no requirement that each concern be brought up individually. I still would like the editors in this "majority," which actually is not a majority, it is exactly half. Three editors are going along with Lionelt, Donald has stated his opinion, but has also stated that he supports reaching a consensus that includes everyone, and two editors are against inclusion. BelloWello (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. I suggest that we not remove any source. Rather, let's agree that SAU sources about Southern have their limits. I think we all would agree that when SAU identifies its course offerings and campus buildings that this provides a reasonably objective source. Perhaps when Southern markets itself, those statements are not the best to cite. It is much more effective if some entity rather than SAU praises the school. Regarding primary sources. Let's debate each one as a concern. Whoever has a concern about the type of source, raise the concern; use the best logic and rationale to support your position. I have seen where an admin comes in and reads beyond the differences of the article group and takes action. That may be necessary here. Some of us are worlds apart from each other and a bit stubborn. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the limits go beyond that. Using SAU is perfectly acceptable for, for example, stating what the major academic structures/divisions and positions are within the university. However, I do not think that they are an appropriate source for deciding which of the finer grained structures display sufficient uniqueness or merit to be worthy of mention. For this I would expect non-routine coverage from a non-Adventist/non-local source. And beyond that of course is the question of balance, not just whether, but how much. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevance

How is the fact that Angel in Chains is "based on a true story about acceptance and forgiveness" relevant to an article on the university? That its department released a film is relevant, the details of the film are not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A brief description is critical for readers unfamiliar with Angel. Especially since there is no wikilink nor external link. Lionel (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the description is tangential and borderline-irrelevant, as the film has only very tangential relevance to the university as a whole. University faculty/students very regularly produce films, musical works, books, paintings, sculptures, etc, etc. Unless the work in question has received a minor award, it is unusual to even mention it, unless it has received a major award, it is unusual to do more than merely mention it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Come to think of it, although the fact that the school released a film is relevant, it hardly demonstrates that the school is "notable" (Schools of Visual Art would do this all the time) unless it won an award or something. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The school releases a film every year, there is no way all of them are notable. BelloWello (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It has 2 sources, as of now. Per WP:DUE a brief description is appropriate. Bello, WP:N applies to article retention/deletion, not content. Lionel (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

For the life of me I don't understand what the big deal is. Hrafn: let's drop the WP gobbledygook for a minute. Forget all the nasty stuff Bello told you about me. Editor-a-editor... Will a reader benefit from a brief description of the film? Lionel (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It won't 'benefit the reader'. It is ir-rel-e-vant. It no more benefits the reader than a detailed description of some random building on campus would. It seems to be there only because, no matter how tangential and irrelevant, it appears to be about the only third-party sourced information you can find connected with the School, so you want to include it in order to give the School some vague appearance of notability. But it doesn't really work for that -- it just makes the article appear haphazard and unfocused. And if you think I'm under BelloWello's influence then you have massively misread both my personality (I'm not exactly amenable to peer pressure) and our level of contact (slight). <chuckles> Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Miscellany

What about a section for Notable alumni? Mascot? And please, please, please tell me they have a football team. If I've spent all this time on a univ w/out a football team I'll kill myself. Lionel (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article under student life, it clearly states they don't have any varsity teams. Haha. Does that mean I should call the suicide hotline? BelloWello (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Did "a certain editor" revert it when noone was looking? Anyway I'll take your word for it as everything I know nothing of SAU, Adventism, Ellen White, etc., is from this article. That was cruel, Bello. Cruel. I'm wounded... To the core. Lionel (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who removed it, I added a sentence about their intramural program and the fact that they didn't have any varsity teams a while ago, someone probably deleted it since it wasn't promotional which is apparently how articles about colleges should be! BelloWello (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits and explanation (the ones that aren't a result of a previous discussion)

• [4] - moved some information to infobox and removed information from lead that was redundant with infobox.
• [5] - U.S. News and World Report doesn't do rankings in that form anymore. This doesn't get a mention anywhere in the article, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article. I have removed it, I am not adverse to it being included under academics.
• [6] - I tagged a this source as a primary source. Although it may not appear to be one, this page makes clear that the schools can easily update their own listings.
• [7] - this is mostly an edit for clarity, however, I removed a "Dr." title since wikipedia doesn't use titles. (I know there's a guideline/styleguide/policy on this somewhere, I can't remember where, but one of the old timers should be able to confirm..)

FYI . . . The guideline is under WP:CREDENTIAL. No comment on the old-timer remark, though. ;) Alanraywiki (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• [8] - I removed Michael G. Hasel from the notable faculty because he is linked already in the Institute for Archaeology. Per WP:LINK, articles should only be linked once.
• [9] - I don't see how a guy who played monopoly on tv is notable, if someone has a rationale, I will not object to that being presented, the person being readded while it is discussed.

I hope that explains my edits. Let's continue to collaborate and seek consensus regarding changes to the article (note that none of my edits made any actual changes, rather they reverted to previous versions). Best! BelloWello (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ownership entity

I made this unsourced edit to the lead of the article. I feel that the owner/operator of an entity is inherently worth including in the article. Although currently unsourced, I am sure that with a little searching, this will be easy to find a citation for. BelloWello (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What is owned by Southern?

This statement has recently been removed and then put back:

"It operates a radio station, WSMC-FM, a health food store and a wellness center."

The removal was done by Tatababy with the reasons given:

Revision as of 17:51, 7 May 2011 (edit)Tatababy (talk | contribs)(the fact te same people that owns the school owns something doesn't mean the school owns it.)

My Quetion: Isn't WSMC-FM owned by Southern? What about the health food store and the wellness center? Is Tatababy correct? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the website the station is operated by and licensed to SAU. It doen't say owned. My ideology is that it is impossible for any private entity to own the airwaves, but since this refers directly to the equipment, license, etc. I think it is fair to say owned however. As for the health food store and wellness center, the wellness center is definitely owned by Southern, its a facility on the campus. I don't think it deserves particular mention in the lead, however. It's just another building on campus like any other, do we also say "they have a maintenance facility?" I would take that out. The health food store is owned by SAU per its website. So Tatababy is incorrect on all three counts. BelloWello (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

I tagged a statement cited only to a self-published primary (unreliable) source as dubious. I find it hard to believe that there are only three Christian "film production units" in the U.S., whatever that means. If it means Christian colleges that teach film, I found at least three in a quick Google Search: Liberty University [10], Regent University [11] [12] and Pacific Union College [13]. That's just a quick search, I am sure there are more. So unless I am misinterpreting "film production unit," that statement is incorrect and goes to show that self-published promotion from colleges is not reliable. BelloWello (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Source says that was the case in 2004. Corrected article. Do you wish to cite a policy that says self-pub sources may not speak about themselves? Lionel (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is "self-published sources may be used unless Lionelt doesn't like what it says." For a more through explanation, see Hrafn's comments above. BelloWello (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Early 1980s edit

This edit [14] seems to be the object of a slow edit war between Bello and editors Simba & Fountain. I think this change should be discussed. I'm reverting to the Simba/Fountain version since (1) the consensus on this talk page favors a conservative rendering of sources (see masturbation discussion), and (2) there is no discussion why Bello's change is better. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is a revert to the previous version before the version you just reverted to. Hence, your assertion that it is a "change" is incorrect, the edit you just made it to the "changed" new version. The version I reverted to was worked on by both me and DonaldRichardSands. I agree, it should be discussed before such a change is made, hence, I will probably revert it back to the previous wording (the one I worked on with Donald) pending further discussion from Fountain/Simba as to why their change is beneficial. BelloWello (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that your "consensus" is actually irrelevant to the issue. The "consensus" was in terms of the wording of the header, I have bowed to that consensus since it was clear that even the level-headed DonaldRichardSands agreed with the more hot-headed WP:AGENDA driven editors. That consensus on the title does not give them permission to remove valid information from the content which is what was done immediately after. BelloWello (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the edit this is the place for it. If you would rather edit war (and I wish you wouldn't) there is nothing I can do to stop you. Lionel (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am all for discussion. I would love to hear a rationale for why the change that leaves out pertinent information that is reliably sourced is necessary. Until such a rationale is given, I think the article should stay in its previous version. BelloWello (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your version is more sensational than Simba/Fountain's. I don't see where Donald supports your edit, and he wrote "sensationalist wording and conservative understatement, I prefer the conservative understatement." Hmmm... you're not discussing your edit... Why? Lionel (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That was in reference to the title. I would welcome an explanation from Fountain or Simba as to why a change is necessary. Until then, I will busy myself getting more DYKs and upgrading more articles to DYK and do my best to keep the article on the previous wording that was unilaterally changed without consensus. Pity, I was going to work on this article but certain editors are pushing their agenda and making it near impossible to work on. BelloWello (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since they're not here at the moment, and you are, why not elaborate on why your edit is preferable. I don't think we need to wait around for them, do we? I'm listening...

I am not the one advocating a change, hence, the onus is not on me to explain. Until an explanation is given as to why a change is necessary, I am quite pleased with the wording that was previously used and insist on its use until a rationale is provided for, and consensus is reached for a change. I am quite satisfied focusing my efforts on other articles which are being improved while certain WP:AGENDA editors continue their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here. My position is unchanged. Let's here the rationale for any controversial change before making it. BelloWello (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the chronology of what I'll call the "found itself drawn" and the "embroiled in a controversy" versions:

4/30	19:57	simba changes "embroiled" version to "found itself drawn"
5/1	09:52	Bello edits "found itself drawn"
5/4	18:00	Bello changes "found itself drawn" version to "embroiled"
5/5	03:58	Simba changes "embroiled" version back to "found itself drawn." From now on Simba, Fountain, Lionelt immediately revert to "found itself drawn"

From 4/30 to 5/4, a period of 4 days, the article reflected the "found itself drawn" version. Bello, you yourself edited this section and did not reinsert the "embroiled" content. 2 other editors edited the article. For 4 days 5 editors including yourself were fine with the section. A new consensus was arrived at on 4/30.

Would you like to discuss your changes to the section? Lionel (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to where this "consensus" was reached on 4/30. I don't recall any such discussion. My position remains unchanged. BelloWello (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox redundancy

Acreage was moved to the infobox with this edit sum "info redundant with infobox." However HELP:Infobox states "the information should still be present in the main text, because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox." Lionel (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask that you reply in the thread I created explaining my edits? Thanks! BelloWello (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Alumni section

Donald, the spacing between entries doesn't look right, and the pics are too small. We also have a free pic of Ponder. What do you say to a gallery? Lionel (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC) How's this?

• 
  Cherie Priest
• Dwight K. Nelson
  Dwight K. Nelson
• 
  Speers Ponder

• 
• Dwight-Nelson.jpg
  Dwight-Nelson.jpg
• 

Take your pick (pun intended)Lionel (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I included the first one, feel free to switch them out if you want. I have no attachment to either. BelloWello (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the gallery approach. I don't like the larger size. People can click on the pictures to see a larger one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wedgwood Trio

I would note that the Adventist Today article, apart from being inappropriately sectarian for establishing the prominence of this group, makes no mention of them being "nationally famous", nor makes mention of Southern Missionary College/SMC (or even Atlantic Union College in relation to this group, for that matter). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed earlier the citation which mentioned the "nationally famous" phrase but left the Adventist Today citation without checking it. I think once you understand the nature of Adventist Today you may not consider it inappropriately sectarian. Adventist Today is actually a gentle counter-culture (Adventist culture) paper. Adventist periodicals very seldom publish controversial news. Adventist Today and Spectrum provide behind the scenes stories. Both journals are not owned or published by the church even though the name Adventist Today sounds like it is. I looked over the Adventist Today piece and found some things about Wedgwood that I did not know before, i.e. that they had been banned and consequently went out of business. I suppose that in itself indicates that they were not nationally famous outside the Adventist church. They certainly made their impact within the church. I recall as a youth hearing about them and the stir they were causing. I will comment out the nationally famous section and invite a proper citation for that fact. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there could be an argument made that the group has a closer relationship to Newbold College (where the group was formed) than to SAU. Regardless, they would probably be more meaningfully discussed in an article that traced Adeventism's (apparently rocky) relationship with popular music than in the context of the University where they happened to spend some time. Also, regardless of where it goes, a source substantiating the material is needed. I'm not surprised that they had little impact outside Adventism, from the descriptions they would seem very stolid and conservative by the wider pop music community of the (extremely experimental, often to the point of self-destruction) time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Land citation clearly links them to Southern. There are some periodicals of the late 60's and early 70's that say they were from Southern. I just finished listening to a recent recording they have done from Australia on Youtube. They say that they present folk music now, not folk rock like they once did. Their music now is by no means controversial even within the Adventist church. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Many periodicals of the time would have mentioned Elvis Presley's time in the army -- but I would not consider that a good reason for a section on him in United States Army. The material to date offers no indication that either of the SAU or the Trio had a profound (or any) influence on the other. Unless sources can be found (for example) stating that the Trio contributed to an identifiable 'SAU sound', or that the University took specific action against them that yielded historically-significant protests, their relationship would appear incidental, and not worthy of mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The ensemble, which provided Southern style folk and bluegrass music, had started in 1964 at Newbold College in England when two SMC students, who were there for a year, joined with a third student from Atlantic Union College. All three, Jerry Hoyle, Don Vollmer, and Bob Summerour, returned to [are at] SMC in 1965 and by the time they graduated from the college, had become well-known within the North American Adventist community.

— Pacific Union Recorder

I have stricken the material in the re-cited in the disputed sentences that are not supported by the source. Not much left. Also note that the source does little to establish noteworthiness (unless you think cooking school classes and fieldtrip are also noteworthy?), and gives only a bare mention to the SMC connection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with your concern for that particular source. I think I have strengthened the kind of citations. Further, I don't believe that noteworthiness within Adventism is in question, is it? The Adventist Church has many articles on wikipedia of entities or persons of little note outside the denomination. I think there are over 500 articles on Adventist topics. I believe that the citations provided in the Wedgwood section clearly establish that they have an SMC connection as graduates and a noteworthy Adventist connection as influences of change within the denomination. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think Wedgwood is relevant. For a while there I thought Wedgwood was a goner... Good job of sourcing, Donald. Love the tie-in to the Beatles. Lionel (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The connection between their music and SAU is sufficiently incidental that they'd make more sense as an Alumni mention than as a section on their own. I would further note that their "noteworthiness within Adventism" is still not supported by the citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider the citations as a whole. Bull and Lockhart certainly speak of them as significant. Land as well. And Johnsson. How many sources must there be before something is noteworty? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is two aspects to this question: (i) When should the article state that they were/are "well-known within the North American Adventist community" -- when we have a source explicitly stating this. (ii) When are they noteworthy in the context of SMC/SAU? When sources do more than simply mention the SMC relationship in passing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cottrell

Cottrell makes a biased statement about SAU in the Ideology section. Cottrell is known to have taken a number of progressive positions later in his career. (Note that he died shortly after making the biased statement.) It's obvious that SAU is conservative. It's obvious Cottrell took progressive positions. It Cottrell is characterizing SAU as untra-conservative, we should not censor the fact that Cottrell took progressive positions. There is no reason why this relevant and sourced content should not be added to the article:

who took a number of progressive positions[15]

Lionel (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship but relevance and weight. It has already been discussed extensively, the reader can easily click through and read more about Cottrell if they'd like. Perhaps you would also like to add that he was one of the most influential individuals in putting together the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and was the editor of the Church's flagship publication, the Adventist Review since that can be reliably sourced? Its obvious that a commenters qualifications should be mentioned. There is no reason why such relevant and sourced content should be censored......... except for due weight. Same goes for your addition that was previously opposed. Please note that "Progressive" and "Conservatives" within Adventist circles are quite a bit different and not quite a polarized as in society, the reason this is relevant is because a highly reputable and respected leader in the Adventist Church put a comment like that into writing, that just usually doesn't happen in the church. But, unless you have a reliable source that connects his positions that some have described after the fact as "progressive" with his surprising statement on Southern, it is no more relevant that 100 other comments on his positions/qualifications. BelloWello (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Who defines what "progressive" means. Here in Canada we used to have "Progressive Conservatives". They were conservatives who thought of themselves as centrist. Hmmm. I doubt that Cottrell even heard the term "progressive" used as an adjective in Adventism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

LaSierra & Adventist Today both have defined Cottrell as "progressive". I would argue these are reliable and valid secondary sources which can be used to apply the label. I would also argue your comment about progressive conservatives in Canada is irrelevant due to there being a Progressive Adventist page which defines the term rather clearly and fits Cottrell almost to the tee. He may not have considered himself "progressive" but his friends did and his beliefs and actions fit easily the definition provided here on Wikipedia. Fountainviewkid 12:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You've never showed us the La Sierra link, Fountainviewkids, I'm not going to comment on something I haven't seen. Again, if we include that label in an attempt to discredit him, when a reader can easily click through and read his article if they are curious, we should also include information about his very large accomplishments. Of course, that would be undue weight, which is why it's best left without any of it. bW 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

All right here it is. The website was having some trouble so I have the cached version, but it's still the same thing [[16]]. It notes "Subsequently, his was a voice for reason and progressive thought...". One need not be a rocket scientist to understand that "progressive thought" which is explained in the next few words refers to Cottrell's contributions to SDA church theology. The label is not an attempt to discredit him anymore than is the label "most conservative school" an attempt to discredit Southern. Both labels are probably appropriate. Cottrell was clearly a Conservative and to have such a biased statement on this link a proper context should be provided, though of course that would defeat the false view Bello is trying to show in portraying him an a neutral and "mainstream" source. Fountainviewkid 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The site you named mentions many things about, in fact the passing mention that he had some progressive positions occurs towards the end and is not even close to the point of the article. If we include that little tid bit, then we should also include his many accomplishments. Or we could just include a link to his page and do all that there. His statement was made in his capacity as a noted Adventist thinker, one of the most influential that we will ever know. Again, why should that specific passing mention be noted but not his many other contributions? You are simply picking and choosing facts to achieve your desired objective in order to discredit the well-deserved criticism that Dr. Cottrell regarding Southern. Please do not re-add the contested information until consensus has been reached. YOu have done your duty under WP:BRD to be bold and addd it, it has been reverted, it is not time to discuss and reach a consensus. He never considered himself a progressive, he should not be labeled as such. bW 20:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you object to the addition on the grounds that it violates WP:DUE? Lionel (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I object based on what I've outlined above. There is no reason to pick and choose one aspect of his career and add it to this article when it can be simply outlined in his article. The fact remains that he was one of the most influential adventists in the nineties, that would be better to include than this. Also, I note, that we are currently 2:2 on inclusion, so even if this were a vote, which it is not, there is no consensus for the addition. bW 19:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove the biased statements that another editor also admitted is essentially a rant. Furthermore the other editor also stated " If the source is obviously a rant, or intensely biased, then even if the author is a respected scholar, the rant should be considered unacceptable". Therefore either we remove the rant or we add context. Otherwise we have an unscholarly propaganda statement by a supposed "influential and respected" leader.Fountainviewkid 18:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for the misleading addition that constitutes undue weight. I would note that the statement was contained in a scholarly paper that he produced, hence your assertion that it is unscholarly is without merit. Either way, the misleading label does not do him justice, and should not be added without a CLEAR consensus to do so. Please stop edit warring to get your way with the article. bW 20:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I do not have consensus for misleading additions. However, my additions are not misleading. The statement may have been in a scholarly paper but it is more of a rant as pretty much all the other editors on here have agreed on. I say either remove the rant or allow for context. Of course you can't let the context be added because that would destroy the ability to try and portray Southern as negatively as you can, something you've been rather focused on lately. Fountainviewkid 20:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you do NOT have consensus for your change. If you want to remove the pertinent quotation from this influential adventist's scholarly paper regarding Southern's ideology, then please feel free to initiate a discussion to attempt to gain consensus. As it remains now, there is NO CONSENSUS for any change and you should stop adding it. You can say anything you want but you do NOT have the ability to choose possible outcomes for everyone else. Furthermore, your personal attacks are out of place. Please either assume good faith or shut the fuck up. bW 20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks? You're the one who just cussed me out. Fountainviewkid 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious to anyone who has read Cottrell's writings over the years knows that he became a progressive adventist. It is possible that he tried to hide it so he could stay employed by the church. Ninatukawewe (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

B.C. or B.C.E.

B.C. or B.C.E.

Biblical Christianity has nothing to say about concerns over how dates are rendered. It is a minor matter, but when you give it further thought, to insist on B.C. rather than B.C.E. is to take part in the forcing of Christian perspective on the world whether they want it or not. For Christians to use B.C.E. is not a denial of Christ. Rather, it is a denial of worldly dominance. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to BC-AD so that the wikilinks work: world domination wasn't on my mind. But, since you bring it up, the source also uses BC-AD. I think we should use BC-AD. Lionel (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Just wanted to explore the world domination theme.

Wedgwood as Notable within Adventist Church

Johnsson (see citation in References of article) wrote:

In the summer of 1965 three fresh-faced American young men came home from studies at Newbold College, England—and changed Adventist music forever.

Gary Land wrote:

The Wedgwood Trio, a folk trio from SMC, achieved widespread popularity in the denomination and thereby introduced contemporary sounds into popular Adventist music.

Bull and Lockhart wrote:

they transformed the sound of Adventist music.

Regarding just listing them as notable alumni: That is not enough, in my opinion. Their impact on the Adventist music scene is a story that should be told. It is interesting that "conservative" Southern Missionary College produced this avant-garde group. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that it didn't 'produce' them -- Newbold College did (as the sources clearly document). SMC just happens to be where the Trio ended up for a while after returning to the US. And I've seen nothing to date to indicate that they were in the least bit "avant-garde" -- their notoriety appears to be for having the temerity to attempt to introduce already-existing (and relatively tame) contemporary musical influences to a reactionary Adventist community that was highly resistant to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that, like any musical group, they developed all along their experience. They graduated from Southern. In that sense they were a product of Southern. Sure they began in Newbold, but they lived, and breathed, wrote music, performed, and shook Adventism's status quo at Southern and as graduates of Southern. It is surprising that their relatively tame music had such an impact on Adventism. The reaction of the church by banning their work (see Johnsson) is further evidence of their notability within the church. The Adventist world church leadership do not take such action against non-notable groups. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"In that sense" they are also "a product of" the bus that they took to school each day and the cereal they ate for breakfast. The sources make it clear that they were a well-established group before they returned to the US, and make no explicit mention of any particular influence SMC had on them -- making any such influence pure speculation. The banning issue gives them relevance to the church as a whole (and would make them very relevant to any article on Adventism and music), but does not make them any more relevant to the university (which does not appear to have played any particular role in banning them). You have not established any relationship between them and SMC beyond "they graduated from Southern" -- a relationship that only merits a mention in the Alumni list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that we do not agree on this. If this remains a point of conflict we may need to ask for help in resolving it.

I do want to thank you for your persistence. It has helped me clarify my thinking and to find sources which clearly support the text. Differences can be quite helpful. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you explain why the Wedgwood Trio is more relevant to SAU than Maggie Brown, Clifford Goldstein, Dwight Nelson, Thomas Mostert, Speers Ponder, Cherie Priest, Mark S. A. Smith or Mathew Staver? All of whom likewise "graduated from Southern. In that sense they were a product of Southern." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a competition. The paragraph establishes sound reasons for the connection between Southern and Wedgwood. The trio is not profiled anywhere else on Wikipedia and they are notable enough to be connect with Southern as the paragraph has done.

(i) I did not state that it was a competition. It is however an issue of editorial consistency. (ii) Given none of the sources do more than give a bare mention of the SMC connection, no "sound reason" has not been established. (iii) That is not a valid reason why the place they should be profiled is here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Probably totally irrelevant, is there enough on this group that they can have their own article? (We would need sources outside of Adventism...) If not, how about moving it to the Newbold College page? bW 16:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hi BW, it certainly would be fitting for Newbold to mention the Wedgwood. But that does not warrant its removal from this Southern article. Without guidance from a few other notable administrators here, we remain at an impasse. I don't understand why there is such resistance to the Wedgwood paragraph. In my opinion, we need some help from a few veteran Wikipedia editors. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Is there relationship with SAU sufficiently more intimate than any of the alumni listed above that they warrant their own section, rather than a mention in the alumni list? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There probably is. For context reasons I'd probably prefer to see it dealt with in an article dealing with Adventism's relationship with popular music than in isolation (otherwise the banning of what seems to have been, for the period, a fairly unexceptional and unadventurous folk music group, would seem confusing to the uninitiated reader). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Splitting out Wedgwood Trio

As no claim has been established that the Wedgwood Trio has any more intimate a relationship to this institution than any of the members of Southern Adventist University#Notable alumni, I am proposing that the section on them be split out into a separate article (either on the group or on Adventism's relationship with popular music), and a link to this article be inserted into the alumni section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I object to this action as I believe notability has been established. Fountainviewkid 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My views have been presented earlier. We need counsel from some veteran editors. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Two points: (i) nobody has even attempted to distinguish how the Trio are different from any of the other alumni currently on the Notable Alumni list (rather than having their own section), (ii) "notability" is an argument for a separate article, not against it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Donald. We need counsel from some veteran editors before we make any changes on this issue.Fountainviewkid 18:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) Non-responsive to either of the points I raised & (ii) I am a "veteran editor" (4 years, 32,000 edits if anybody's interested) -- so why are you avoiding engaging (either to accept it, or to refute it) my "counsel" so assiduously? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We've all presented are views earlier. Lionel, Donald, and I are all in agreement that the Trio should stay. No need to rehash all points. Fountainviewkid 17:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

None of you have either (i) made any attempt to state why the Wedgwood Trio should have a section within this article, when other alumni don't (the only argument for their section has been that they are graduates of SMC, which would also apply to all other alumni -- making this argument a special pleading -- a logical fallacy) or (ii) explained why notability of the Trio means that they should not have an article of their own (as is normal Wikipedia practice for notable topics). So no, you have NOT "already engaged" me on these points. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Already engaged on those points. Agree with Donald. Fountainviewkid 17:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Where? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay. It appears one of my posts didn't actually get posted. Here's what I thought was already available. Sorry for the confusion. On one of the sources it was noted that while the Trio met at Newbold they really took off at SMC. One key fact was that only 2 of the 3 were originally from SMC (the other being from AUC). By the third one choosing to come to SMC, the trio was able to stay alive and achieve notability, otherwise it would have died. SMC played a role not only by having them graduate but also by being the place where all 3 of them originally began to be recognized. Also it was at SMC where they officially took their name. Additionally their first recording came at SMC through the help of one of the teachers. Their first sales occurred at SMC as well. Finally they got involved in evangelistic series through SMC when HMS Richards visited the school. This link has a lot of the details which connects SMC to the trio [[17]]. Fountainviewkid 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you added it, but then deleted it immediately with a later post. The problem with this argument is that the group would likewise have survived if they'd all returned to AUC, or all stayed at Newbold until they graduated, or all gone to Pacific Union College instead, or all decided to drop out of college to pursue their musical careers. SMC remains incidental to the group continuing (all that was needed is that they ended up in the same location somehow). This is a very weak argument for claiming a special relationship to the institution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You did the same thing that Bello does; only reply to one portion of my argument. Remember I gave more reasons than just the fact that they all returned to SMC. I believe I listed at least 5 other reasons connecting the Trio with SMC. I would argue that if they had stayed at Newbold or gone to PUC or some other place then they should appear under that school's article. The fact they chose SMC is more than incidental as it then became identified with their music. Read the source. It makes it pretty clear that SMC was more than "incidental". Fountainviewkid 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- the first was the argument you'd already made in your deleted post, so it was the one I already had a counter for. I have seen no evidence to date that SMC was (i) "the place where all 3 of them originally began to be recognized" (and the PUR discussion of their European successes seems to argue otherwise) (ii) "where they officially took their name" (all that seems to have happened is that they changed their name due to another group in the area already using their old one) (iii) where "their first recording" was made (they seem to have recorded music in France) or (iv) where "their first sales occurred" (no indication from the IAMA piece where the sales occured, only when). I'm not sure what you mean by "evangelistic series". Reliable sources for any of this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay good. Thanks for partially responding to most of my points. (i) I still don't buy your counter though and neither do the other editors. As for it being the place where they were originally recognized, the source I am using states "When summer ended, The Wedgwood Trio was nationally known in Adventist circles and hugely popular with young people" (this occurred while they were at SMC, before they had been known but not "nationally recognized"). (ii) The name is important as it symbolizes their mission. While the change was done due to another group already having it the source notes "decided the name had a classy ring to it and would suggest high quality folk music". (iii) According to the source "During the school year they had worked with Jim Hannum, a teacher at SMC, to record and produce their first record". I guess when I mean "recording" I am referring to record or today's version of album, even though you are right in that they were recorded in Europe for educational and evangelistic purposes. SMC was where they made their first record. The source describes the recording as occurring in conjunction with SMC faculty and (Donald could probably confirm this) appears to have been made at SMC (it was during the school year). (iv) Evangelistic series are religious meetings Adventists use to try and convert other people to become Adventist sort of like the Billy Graham crusades. HMS Richards was one of the most famous SDA evangelists. It was through evangelism that they also became well known and this occurred as the source notes "while visiting on campus". Additionally they had another record made "during their final semester at SMC". The reliable source has been already noted aboveFountainviewkid 20:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally Southern University itself lays official claim to it's formation. Southern Columns, the official magazine of the university wrote in the fall of 1993 that "The original Wedgwood Trio was formed at Southern Missionary College in 1966" (back cover)[[18]]. Fountainviewkid 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been noted many, many times, weight in an article cannot be established by self-published sources. bW 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this before Bello. Self-published sources are appropriate and can be used.Fountainviewkid 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have been through this before. I don't understand why you're bringing it up again. Secondary sources are absolutely required to show weight, as has already been established. This is getting ridiculous. bW 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And the weight has been shown. Fountainviewkid 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguments by assertion are widely considered logical fallacies. So, let's try again, self-published sources do not add to this discussion because they do not prove due weigh to Southern. bW 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not by "assertion" and is not a logical fallacy. This is not a self-published source. Instead it is an article which is "based in part on interviews conducted by Marilyn Thomsen with members of the Wedgwood Trio, which were then edited and placed in context by her in "Wedgwood: Their music, their journey", Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1996. That's not "self-published". Fountainviewkid 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello, you wrote "weight in an article cannot be established by self-published sources." I couldn't find that in WP:DUE. Where is it? Lionel (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most certainly I am in agreement that the Trio should stay.Simbagraphix (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should they stay? Bald statement of a position, without stating a reason, let alone attempting to engage the counterarguments, does not add much to the conversation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support splitting section out into a new article on the Trio and listing a link under Notable Alumni. Their association with Southern can be noted in THEIR article where it belongs, if it reliably sourced (I'm not speaking to sourcing). Perhaps a request for comment would be appropriate here... bW 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting section. See previous discussion. Fountainviewkid 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• See, WP:NOTAVOTE. bW 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As other editors have noted you use this mainly to try and force your view on the article. No this is not a vote, but when the majority of the editors working on this article are opposed to an action it should not occur unless action is taken by higher powers. Fountainviewkid 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think a standalone Wedgwood would survive AfD. Note that many of the people listed in the Alumni section have been sent to AfD by a certain editor.

Arbitration Committee

Has anyone reading this had experience with Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee ?

The discussion re: The Wedgwood Trio is at an impasse, IMO. There has been significant work put into the paragraph on the group both in finding reliable sources and making good faith adjustments based on critical comments. I am personally surprised at the negative interest some seem to have about anything relating the the Southern article. Maybe I am being overly sensitive, but some editors do very little to build an effective article. In the overall picture of life, why such intense interest in controlling the Southern article. Are there some unstated conflicts of interest? Whatever the case, it seems like we will need some form of arbitration to move forward. I have put a lot of work into finding reliable sources for the Wedgwood paragraph, but do not consider the trio to be the subject of a separate article at this point. Maybe someone would like to develop a Wedgwood article without tampering with what we have developed on the Southern article. Once that Wedgwood article is up and running, maybe we can talk further. Meanwhile, the Wedgwood paragraph should not be taken out of Southern's article without an Arbitration decision, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support in sending this to arbitration. I agree with Donald. Though I have not worked with Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee before I think it might be a good idea. I already have a few sources which could be added to the article in order to make good faith adjustments. I agree that perhaps at some point Wedgwood could separate but for now keeping it with Southern based on the history of the group would be a good idea.Fountainviewkid 21:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking further on this. Eventually, a separate article on Wedgwood might work. There is one source which is kind of illusive but strong in telling the Wedgwood story. That source is:

Marilyn Thomsen (1996). Wedgwood: their music, their journey. Pacific Press Pub. Association, 1996. 176 pages.

The International Adventist Music AssociationDonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The International Adventist Music Association Online as a source for The Wedgwood Trio

At first the website http://www.iamaonline.com/ did not seem very reliable. IAMA is the International Adventist Music Association. But, after investigating the site and its careful use of sources, I have developed considerable respect for what they have set forth there. They provide an amazing musical resource including information about the Wedgwood Trio. They introduced me to Marilyn Thomsen's work. Eventually the material provided there could be helpful in developing a separate Wikipedia article on the Wedgwood Trio. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Until such an article exists, I remain opposed to any reduction of the Wedgwood paragraph on this SAU article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ranked eight consecutive years

As I recall this content has been in the article for some time. Recently Bello found a more current source and boldly removed it, most recently, with the edit sum "rmv irrelevancy that was added without discussion":

and has been ranked one of the “Best Baccalaureate Colleges” for eight consecutive years as of 2010.[19][20]

It's bizarre that he refers to this as "irrelevancy" since it is obviously relevant. It's strange that he is demanding discussion since it was already in the article, and he boldly removed it. The way BRD works is that an editor is bold (Bello removing the content), he gets reverted (Simba and myself have reverted Bello) and then he discusses why he thinks the content should be removed. Bello, this content is sourced, and I can't imagine your position is that it's irrelevant, so under which policy are you claiming this content should be removed? Lionel (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that content was recently added and I am reverting the irrelevent addition. I would note that "Best Baccalaureate Colleges" was simply a category of colleges for U.S. News and World Report, colleges are placed in one of these categories. The worst baccalaureate college in the country was listed in that category until they were renamed in this years rankings. So, again, writing that it was listed as a "Best Baccalaureate College" according to U.S. News and World Report is simply misleading, it was listed as a Baccalaureate College, now a Regional College (same thing). So again, it is simply redundant of what is already written, that it is categorized by the USN&WR (which gets its classifications from Carnegie) as a Southern Regional College, the new name of what was known as the Best Southern Baccalaureate College category. So why exactly should we note that it was listed in the same category for the past nine years? We would note if it's category had changed, but that is not the case. However, all that aside, lets hear the argument for inclusion since the onus on those being bold and making the addition to argue their side! bW 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep making the claim that "the onus on those being bold and making the addition to argue their side." This in fact is contrary to policy. From WP:BRD: "... I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Lionel (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected to source. Now reads "and has listed it as a Top Tier college for eight consecutive years as of 2010" Lionel (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is more acceptable. How about this wording: "The U.S. News & World Report categorizes it as a Southern Regional College and has consistently listed it as one of its top tier schools in that category." It's shorter, I don't think it misrepresents the source since not only was it eight consecutive years, it is still listed as a top tier, even if not very high. I also think it sounds better with my proposed wording. bW 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like my wording, at the very least, please remove the superflous comma, has→had and use lower case for "top tier," until we can discuss the wording further. bW 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If Simba approves it's OK with me. Lionel (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the change. bW 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)