Talk:Hyles–Anderson College

POV

I'm Sorry, do you really think that any thinly veiled legal threats will carry any weight? I quote: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." The fact that you threaten legal action for statements with which you disagree makes one think that they possibly are not, in fact, baseless. By the way, isn't that dangerously close to prohibiting free speech, or becoming a 'thought police.'

All Wiki entries should conform to the Neutral Point of View.

It is impossible to truly understand the Hyles phenomenon without a discussion of the scandals and accusations that literally changed his ministry in the 1980's. While Hyles' followers have for years attacked those who would even bring the allegations up, 2 books, a major expose by a credible journalist and multiple media articles do not comprise "innuendo" and "libel". Hyles' son has been investigated for child abuse that lead to the death of a child. Hyles' son has a notorious record of immoral sexual conduct with a wide variety of women in multiple churches. Hyles-Anderson is indisputably an unaccreditted college whose graduates are left with a largely unmarketable degree. These aren't "un-neutral" points of view -- they are FACTS. The fact that the Hyles' followers constantly monitor this page and remove any "non-pro-Hyles" information off of it says a lot. True thinkers need the whole story. It is just this kind of response that has lead many to conclude the Hyles adherents are trapped in a cultic system. For verification, read "The Wizard of God" by Victor Nischek, "Fundamental Seducation" by Attorney Voyle Glover or do a web search for multiple other articles and exposes on Jack Hyles.

This Wiki entry is for information about a Bible College, not a forum for personal accusations and/or character assassinations against religious figures. Please refer to this link concerning Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View. --Teeja 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read the policy. There are no character assassinations or personal accusations in my post. There is clear, verifiable information that needs to be known and investigate by prospective students before the spend tens of thousands of dollars on an unaccreditted degree from an institution that is at best, "controversial". Noting that several books and articles are available for additional information is not biased and does the reader a service by refering them to additional sources of information. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes nothing more than a free advertising source. No credible journalist or researcher would write the history of Hyles-Anderson College without including these facts. In some cases, they are found in legal documents and records of courts.

Please note that in situations like this where the accuracy and neutrality of a Wiki article is in question, the Wikipedia procedure is no further revisions until a consensus has been met in this discussion area. At this point, there has not been enough discussion to warrant the changes you suggest. Please continue to discuss and invite others into the discussion and hopefully a consensus will develop and reasonable and accurate changes can be implemented. Until that time, the current revision will stand. --Teeja 14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Unacreditted

The word "unacreditted" was removed from the article. Does ANYONE dispute that? They make it a point to tout the fact that they do not and will not seek accreditation. The CHOOSE to be unaccredited and those investigating this college through Wikipedia should be aware of that. It is ridiculous to consider a single, factual word to be "biased".

The bias in this exchange is one-sided...even the fact that the school is Unaccredited -- a known fact -- is considered to be "anti-" or somehow negative. If it is negative, then why is it a problem? Why are things that can be found in the media, books that have been written regarding the whole of Hyles-Anderson and the founder, internet discussions and other links deemed "biased." The only bias seen is what is being demonstrated by the Wikipedia editor and those who continue to take down any revisions.

I agree with your current revision - there is a slight, but important difference in saying that an organization is "unaccredited" vs. "The college takes a position against accreditation by outside agencies" The former did not appear to express the fact in a neutral tone, while the later explains the college's position in detail, thus adding neutrality to the stated fact, therefore, your last revision conforms to Wikipedia policy. --Teeja 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right about POV in regards to accreditation. The page reads HAC "refuses to accept accreditation." This is bogus, there are not accreditation agencies handing out accreditation on the street corners. Rather Hyles-Anderson College has not applied for accreditation from any national or religious accreditation agency. This section needs to more properly reflect what accreditation is, means, and how is it received. The whole thing reads like an ad for an unaccredited school. Arbusto 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Solutions

In an attempt to satisfy both sides on these issues, I have created a separate Wiki entry named the Jack Hyles Controversy Wiki. I have also added a "Controversy" section here to provide for a link to this new Wiki. The new wiki has suggested sections, please feel free to add to these sections as needed, keeping in mind that all Wikipedia entries must conform to the Neutral Point of View. This will hopefully remove some of the heated arguments concerning this page, while still acknowledging that the accusations exist, and provide another venue for those who wish to post addional information concerning those accusations.. --Teeja 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent and commendable compromise, Teeja. Many thanks.

Yep, I agree also. If the text of the Jack Hyles or Hyles-Anderson wiki is 90 percent anti-Hyles, the pro-Hyles people will edit it out. If there is nothing here about the controversy at all, the anti-Hyles people will edit it out. It seems to me that this is a good solution, retaining the integrity, spirit and intent of the Wikipedia founders.

There is Wikipedia precedence for this type of solution-- according to the Wiki POV fork article, "As Wikipedia articles grow, they often need to be segmented, or branched, into manageable parts. This is an accepted premise for forking an article, and the nature of that split more often depends upon consensus — e.g. a "Criticism of" article may be justified if there is enough (or going to be enough) material to justify a separate article..." Seems to me that there is enough information to warrant such a fork from the main Jack Hyles wiki.

A POV fork is not acceptable here. The article is not too long, and can easily fit in mention of related Jack Hyles criticism. Your quote is also extremely manipulative. The POV fork page also says "This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." Only later does it qualify that statement with the quote you gave. Hence, Jack Hyles Controversy has been nominated for deletion (by someone else). Superm401 - Talk 06:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that a POV should not be allowed. Criticism on the school/founders should be with the school. Arbustoo 01:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition of 'Doctrinal Statement' section

Is it appropriate for this to be listed on the wikipedia entry for this school? In my opinion, it would be more encyclopedic to offer a brief summary of the institution's opinions and values, perhaps with a link to a doctrinal statement available at the end of the section or article. Any other opinions? The reason I bring this up is that in the past the articles that I've seen on institutions seem to be fairly uniform in encyclopedically describing the institution itself instead of stating their beliefs in a raw format. Any input would be appreciated. Kuzaar 18:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 'I'm going to revert to the previous version to conform to what seem to be current standards until I can hear a second opinion on the matter. Kuzaar 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it might be useful, considering it is primarily a Bible college. It would show what makes it distict. If it is replaced, use http://www.hylesanderson.com/about_us/doctrinal_statement as the reference. Also put the section in itallics.

It's no problem if you want to include a link to the pertinent information, I am merely a strong supporter of article class uniformity and standards. Kuzaar 13:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It way appropriate to remove the full text. I've added a link. Superm401 - Talk 06:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If people would like that information they can visit the school's webpage. Arbustoo 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a neutral article.

Sheesh! Whoever wrote really needs to understand how to write from an opposing view ("writing for the enemy" is one way of putting it). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Those who post such nonsense and hate-filled tripe need to learn how to write from a Neutral Point of View. -GeorgeS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs) .

Neutral does not mean deleting the past criticism of the school and its founders. Please edit the article to remove bias, but not content/criticism. Arbustoo 01:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, PLEASE quit valdalizing this wiki. It is YOUR biased edits that are causing the problem here. Either write in NPV or don't edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs) .

I did not "write" that article. It was a copy edit from the POV fork YOU created (Jack Hyles Controversy ) to keep criticism off this page. The same POV fork YOU voted twice on. If you have issue with it discuss or edit. Blanking criticism is not nPOV.Arbustoo 03:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This article contains lots of information that is not Hyles-Anderson College. It is nearly an exact duplication of material found in the Hyles article and the Church article. The article is written in a very biased tone. Arbustoo has demonstrated his ability to take a neutral source and remove only the material that puts Hyles in the most negative light into the article. This is inappropriate behaviour for an editor and violates the policy of NPOV. Vivaldi (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Hopefully this'll help folks come to a consensus on the issues fueling this edit war. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice, you locked the page with all Arbustoo's crap intact. This is OBVIOUSLY not written in a NPV. -GeorgeS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs) .

If you feel that something is written out of NPOV, than discuss it with another editor before reverting to a previous version. Moe ε 03:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tried that Moe, it didn't work... please I am a board member of this college and these people are posting outrageous accusations and utter falsehoods on this Wiki. I would hate to have this issue go to court, but something has to be done about these people vandalizing this Wiki. Wikipedia is a very popular Internet reference site and it's important that our college be fairly represented here. Any suggestions are welcome of course. Thanks -GeorgeS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs) .

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. You can be blocked for such talk -- not because you aren't free to pursue legal action, but because you won't be welcome to edit until your threat of legal action is either pursued to its ends or withdrawn. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia encourages people not to edit articles that they are personally involved in. This is a strong guidline. Possibly as a board member you shouldn't be involved in this anyways. JoshuaZ 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

George, I did not "write" that article. It was a copy edit from the POV fork YOU created (Jack Hyles Controversy ) to keep criticism off this page. The same POV fork YOU voted twice on. If you have issue with it discuss or edit.

George, what should be changed? What is false? What should be removed? Let's work on this. Arbustoo 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, I did not create this fork, I only supported the decision to do it since it ended a Wiki war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs) .

So if you knew I did not write it because you supported the POV fork, why did you accuse me of writing a nPOV article? If you supported the removal of the information why did you have the gall to claim I wrote something when you knew full well where the information came from? To further your own agenda of keeping this off the page?

I ask again: what should be changed? What is false? What should be removed? Arbustoo 03:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK for the sake of those not aware of this old wiki war. If these controversies are correct and verifiable why should they not be on this page? Why were they forked off into a less visible place? You realise that the page for Hyles-Anderson College is not an advertising tool for the college, right? If you only wanted positive POV on this page it was probably a bad idea to create it in the first place. David D. (Talk) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User:69.214.212.201 (also his sock puppet User:Steven123456) GeorgeS (board member of Hyles-Anderson College) was just "indefinitely blocked" for making threats (one on User talk:69.214.212.201 and the other on this talk page). I hope his behavior is not indictative of his peers' attitudes/actions. Arbustoo 04:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also semi-protected Jack Hyles and will increase to full protection if warranted. Guy 09:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

POV fork suggestions?

This page was locked because two people were deleting/white washing a criticism section. If those people have a problem with certain aspects of the article post them here so we can move on and unlock the page. If those people do not have any recommendations they should stop vandalizing the article. Let's work on this to add/remove the content from a controversy and criticism section for a consensus (probably decided by an adminstrator). Arbustoo 03:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is that these "controversies" were basically an attack by two men who had a personal axe to grind against Jack Hyles. They have literally dedicated a major part of their lives to degrading this man's ministry and to a great degree have succeeded in twisting facts and magnifying their own false charges so much so that the two entries on Jack Hyles and Hyles-Anderson College are now simply an advertisement for their grievances. It's not that anyone is trying to "whitewash" the criticim; rather, it's that the criticism needs to be in its proper proportion and perspective, when compared to the overall ministry of Jack Hyles and the college. When there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who have been helped by Jack Hyles, and when you contrast that with this small handful of attackers, it does not seem right that the majority of words on these Wiki entries deal with their anti-Hyles grievances. Those who have tried to "write for the enemy" have seen all their work wiped out by vandals who insist that their minority viewpoint take center seat to a more reasoned and NPV writing style on the subject. I'm not confident that this can be resolved. For the most part, the anti-Hyles editors have three things going for them that will ensure that these Wiki entries remain an advertisement for their grievances - 1) they seem to have a great amount of free time, 2) they are filled with a great desire to see this man's ministry degraded and impuned at any cost, and 3) they themselves (or their friends) have the power to ban from Wikipedia IP address of those with whom they disagree, making their opponents out to be "vandals" when the opposite is true. --68.252.176.158 16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start with respect to dialog. So the real issue here is how to get this issue into the page in a way that is NPOV and balanced by some of the good characters that Hyle has shown with regard to his ministry. Who as the two editors that you think have a grudge? David D. (Talk) 17:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See the "Jack Hyles talk" for articles from the national press about sex abuse. Arbustoo 00:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

Biblical teachings

Bob L Ross has accused Jack Hyles' of erroneous teachings. More specifically Ross has asked if Hyles "read in the Bible that the apostles 'preached' the Word and men were 'born of God'" because "Hyles jumps to the confusion of identifying the "seed" of I Peter 1:23 as being a reference to the 'Word of God.' It is NOT." [1]

Similarly, others have noted "doctrinal errors" in Hyles' teachings.^[2] For example, Reverend Robert Sumner of The Biblical Evangelist argued "(1) Hyles adopted what could be considered a Mormon philosophy of celestial marriage to justify his relationship with Jennie Nischik, Vic Nischik's wife. (2) In 1971, when Jennie first demanded that husband Vic leave, Hyles came to Vic and reportedly asked if, once divorce had been granted, he had permission to marry her.(3) In 1985, when Vic demanded that Hyles give him his wife back, Hyles reportedly told Vic that he could have Beverly (Mrs. Hyles), with the same relationship Hyles enjoyed with Jennie."^[3][4]

Church funds questioned

On May 28, 1989 The Chicago Tribune reported "former associate Victor Nischik has accused Hyles of having an affair with his former wife Jennie" and questionable financial dealings.^[5] Pastor Hyles replied by saying the charges were "false" and "he has given 'hundreds of thousands' of dollars to needy friends over many years but has kept no records of the transactions.^[6]

Leadership/cult issues

Reverend Tom Neal, amongst others have been said to follow Jack Hyles in a "cultic" way. ^[7][8]The Hyles followers are well known within fundamental Christianity as slavishly devoted to the legacy of Hyles and many fit comfortably into the definition of cultists. Neal purported that Hyles took increasingly extreme positions, such as declaring the King James Version the only valid translation of Scripture, suggesting that people converted while reading a different translation were not truly Christians and teaching that one could earn "credits" with God to compensate for sins.

Sex scandals

On May 25, 1989 The Chicago Tribune, explained former faculty member/deacon of the First Baptist Church, Victor Nischik accused Jack Hyles of committing adultery with Nischik's wife and Hyles' long time assistant, Jennie Nischik. Allegations were first made public in the "Godfrey Letter," which was an informative letter sent by Evangelist George Godfrey to several hundred graduates, pastors, and former students of Hyles-Anderson college.^[9] The letter did not specify sexual sin but raised questions about improprieties between Jack Hyles and his married assistant, Jenny Nischik. The Godfrey letter also specified other doctrinal and behavioral problems observed in Jack Hyles by this former faculty member.^[10]

However, the publication that forced the scandals of Jack Hyles into the public view of Baptist fundamentalism was a lengthy May 1989 expose printed by Robert Sumner in his newspaper (The Biblical Evangelist) under the title "The Saddest Story I've Ever Told."^[11]

In 1993, a Michigan news team, following up on allegations in five different fundamentalist churches of children molested by church workers, traced each alleged perpetrator back to Hyles-Anderson college.^[12] This news team produced a 30-minute documentary called "Preying from the Pulpit" for the Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News program (Preying from the Pulpit pt. 1, pt.2, pt.3, pt.4, pt. 5). In this documentary they reported on the "repressive" manner in which women were treated at Hyles-Anderson college, and they focused part of their report on the story of AV Ballenger, a deacon/Hammond Baptist bus driver sentenced to five years in prison for molesting a seven year old girl in a Sunday School classroom. ^[13]

1997 allegations of abuse

On December 8, 1997 Christianity Today reported Jack Hyles and the First Baptist Church of Hammond was being sued by "mentally disabled church member" for being repeatedly raped and assaulted for six years.^[14] The lawyer for the women, Vernon Petri, "says Hyles is a defendant because he failed to protect the woman", such that "Controls have to be set to be sure things are conducted appropriately, Petri says."^[15]

2000 Comb's abuse

Reverend Joseph Combs and his wife, Evangeline Lopez Combs were members of First Baptist Church of Hammond and Combs was also a professor at Hyles-Anderson College^[16]. The two adopted Esther Combs, who "experts" say was "tortured" for nearly 20 years. "The 410 scars she accumulated from curling iron burns, baseball bat beatings and other abuse went undetected because she was in the care of a minister and his wife, who used a cloak of religion and home schooling to isolate her."^[17] While one babysitter testified "that they suspected Esther was mistreated but didn't want to contradict Combs, who had been their Bible professor at Hyles Anderson College."^[18] Furthermore, the another babysitter testified she "reported her suspicions to the college president, but apparently nothing was done, she said."^[19] In 1986, Combs moved to Florida to start a church and he and his wife were found guilty in 2000.

References

1. ^ "Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says," The Chicago Tribune, May 28, 1989.
2. ^ "The Jack Hyles Story" (PDF). The Biblical Evangelist. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
3. ^ "Hyles' Supporters are Blind Followers of Men". Way of Life. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
4. ^ "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993.
5. ^ "Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case," The Chicago Tribune, Oct 16, 1991.
6. ^ "Baptist Megachurch Faces Sex Suit". Christianity Today. Retrieved Dec. 8. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
7. ^ "Experts say Combs child abuse case unusual," The Associated Press, April 7, 2000.
8. ^ "Esther Combs faces the woman she called mother and asks: Why?". The Associated Press. Retrieved April 25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

Is this okay

• Suggestions? Is the above okay to add to the article? If not, please explain why. Arbusto 05:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looks to be well-referenced and presented, I have no problem with it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to add this to the article if we can get some more opinions on it. Arbusto 19:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I like what you have put together. In all this research did you ever see anything positive written by the mainstream press? David D. (Talk) 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• For interested parties on the sources visit www.Chicagotribune.com search archives for Jack Hyles and you will find the sources in the article. To read the articles you must register. The search that comes up is: Arbusto 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Capsules were compiled by Nathan Baird, Henry Del Valle,Chicago Tribune; Nov 18, 2002; 14;
2. REV. JACK HYLES LED BUS MINISTRY James Janega, Tribune Staff Writer; Chicago Tribune; Feb 9, 2001; 11;
3. No investigation of church in abuse cases, police say Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 24, 1993; 3;
4. Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case Chicago Tribune wires.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Oct 16, 1991; 3;
5. Newspaper feud adds fuel to preacher's fire Eric Zorn.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Jun 30, 1989; 1;
6. Charges all lies, Hammond pastor says Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 28, 1989; 3;
7. Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says Hisley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 28, 1989; 2C3;
8. Pastor denies adultery, 2 other charges Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 25, 1989; 1;
9. Pastor Denies Adultery, 2 Other Charges Hirsley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 25, 1989; 11;

A search for Hyles Colleges adds two more, they are a bus accident and an obituary:

1. Bus accident injures 16 on Bishop Ford Rick Jervis, Tribune staff reporter; Chicago Tribune; Sep 21, 2003; 4;
2. ROBERT BILLINGS, MORAL MAJORITY FOUNDER New York Times News Service.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Jun 4, 1995; 6;

• I'm mainly fine with it, although it would be nice to have a more direct reference for "Preying from the Pulpit." JoshuaZ 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

From the controversy page, "the five-part audio recording of this documentary is available here:: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Arbusto 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems good to me. JoshuaZ 02:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I finally listened the "Preying" audio of the news program. Very disturbing stuff. Arbusto 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Academics

Since Hyles-Anderson College is unaccredited, meaning not recognized by any group with ties to the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or the US Department of Education, it is difficult for the academic community to judge the education offered at the college.[25]

Every single full-time faculty member (38 educators/adminstrators) received at least one degree from Hyles-Anderson College.(pages 8-23, [26]) Of those, the majority only have undergraduate degrees and no graduate work.(pages 8-23,[27])

On the Hyles-Anderson applicantion, the school does not ask for the applicants' grades at previous schools[28].

Some of the "science programs" the school offers include, "music education," "marriage and motherhood," "pastoral assistantship" and "pastoral theology."

For students that take more than five units at the college, their spouse is offered free coursework as well. This is due in part so the wives of students "can learn to be a successful leader's wife."(page 36,[29])

Religion is a very important aspect of education at Hyles-Anderson. According to the school catalog "each student is required to go soul-winning each week." (page 34, [30]).

As for money, tuition is $4,100 a year (not including housing).(page 38,[31])

Academic facts need to be in a school article. Arbusto 02:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This information can be included in the article, but your conclusions can not. That's original reserach. If someone else has made comments about this, you can republish them.

Superm401 - Talk 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit out the "conclusions." I removed all the heresay that was in page history and went through the catalog. I looked for objective academic reviews, but found none. I tried to find a job placement list of alumni, I found none. Arbusto 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is a bit too sneering in tone. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan, can we get the criticism from the above section consensus added? Arbusto 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you've really reached a consensus I'll be glad to unprotect the article. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A semi-protect would be best, judging from yesterday's activity, in which all documented criticism of the Hammond Church got deleted three times. Arbusto 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't semiprotect preemptively. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not really "preemptive" considering the last 5 white washes of criticism were done by anon. IPs. The same anon. IPs as the other Hyles page. Arbusto 03:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected; 5 days is too long. Everyone, remain calm and remember to write from the NPOV, cite sources, and avoid original research. Superm401 - Talk 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A curious thing

Has anyone noticed how edits which claim to be correcting POV sonehow never add information whihc is unflattering to the college, only remove it? Curious, no? Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that Wikipedia administrators who intervene on the Hyles-Anderson College, First Baptist Church and Jack Hyles wikis never intervene to support anything positive concerning these subjects (except to delete edits that might add positive information here), but are more than willing to jump right in and support anti-FBC, anti-Jack Hyles, and anti-Hyles Anderson College edits? --68.78.118.244 23:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is you adding something that is uncited and removing things that are. Arbusto 01:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Location

Hyles-Anderson is located in unincorporated St John Township, Lake County, Indiana. It does have a Crown Point, Indiana mailing address. I believe this is only a post office formality. Much of the area surrounding the school has been annexed by the town of Schererville, IN. My guess for Hyles-Anderson not being annexed as part of a town is that:

(1)The school wouldn't want to be part of a town and (2)The towns wouldn't want the school being part of their towns because the on campus students could swing local elections.Kalmia 10:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Fine, but please don't whitewash the accreditation status, there is a strong consensus for representing it as it was. Accreditaiton is not inconsistent with mission, TRACS exists to accredit Christian schools, and special pleading has no place in an encyclopaedia article. Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed For philosophical reasons in an effort to maintain independence, Hyles-Anderson has refused to seek accredidation by any accredidation granting organization. What "philospohical reasons," where is this explained/cited, what's wrong with the 4 independent religious groups that accredite other bible colleges, ect? This phrase shows a strong misunderstanding of accreditation, aside from being miscited. Wikipedia should not let is enteries put a strawman argument for accreditation. Arbusto 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with stating that that is why the school claims to be unaccredited, if that's published somewhere, as long as it's properly couched. "I.E.: The school is not accredited by any accrediting bodies. Its administration states this is because ..." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

All I could find was a statement from Hyles himself. If someone can find a more up to date reference that'd be ideal. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care how he chose to dress it up, the fact is that it is unaccredited. Of course he's going to say that Government funding would compromise the school, but do you think they would hesitate from taking Free Money^TM? I think not. Just zis Guy you know? 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on a personal level, but even criminals get to say their piece. The reader can decide whether to believe them or not. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to whitewash anything. "Hyles-Anderson has refused to seek accredidation by any accredidation granting organization." isn't whitewashing anything. "what's wrong with the 4 independent religious groups that accredite other bible colleges, ect?" What's wrong with those organizations? I don't know anything about those 4 organiztions. It is though you think that I am a HAC representative and are trying to convince me. I'm just stating the facts. They have NO interest in those organizations. They have NEVER sought accredidation from any organization, and that should be noted. If you want to argue the merits of accredidation of HAC, then do it with them. Yes, Arbustoo, it IS a choice. And why do you people insist on inserting your statist POV regarding the US Department of Education?

HAC isn't the only school that refuses state funds. There are other schools, both accredited and non-accredited that refuse state funds. This is the reason that many who support private education are opposed to voucher systems in k-12 education. Look at the Alliance for the Separation of School & State.

I'll try to find a source stating their position on accredidation, but an explanation should be there, and my explanation was pretty close to the truth. It comes from hearing some from that school say it. I'm not a student of HAC and never have been, nor have I ever been employed by them.

BTW, it is "etc." not "ect." "Ect." makes absolutley no sense at all.Kalmia 04:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In your response you completely misrepresented accreditation again. Accreditation is not offered by the government so your claim about "statism" and church/state is non-existent. Accreditation is offered by private, non-profit groups. Some are regional, vocational, and some are religious/Christian organizations. Also they "refuse state funds" is not the proper phrase. To refuse state funds you must be offered state funds. To my knowledge and the evidence would indicate this is not the case.

The claim that they “refuse” and accreditation is government "control" is incorrect. Moreover, it is a complete misrepresentation of accreditation and the relating academics, which is the issue. Thus, the claims you added are not only a misrepresentation, but they are uncited. I’m sure the school has reasons for not being accredited and they should be listed (if they are sourced), but representing accreditation properly is just as important. Hyles-Anderson’s misconceptions about accreditation should not be used as a strawman an encyclopedia page.

BTW: You don't have point out spelling errors because I could point out your spelling errors such as five times you wrote "accredidation" (correction = accreditation), "absolutley" (correction = absolutely), and "organiztions" (correction = organization). Arbusto 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

William A. Beith

Alumni? Do you have a source for this claim?

Kalmia 05:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like most schools you call up the school to verfiy someone completed that school. In this case William "Andy" Beith received national attention years back, which is why he's included in the alumni section. In fact in a ABC News report "Beith was arrested in 1990, while still a teenager, and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor for exposing himself to a 15-year old girl." But more interestly "He became principal of Liberty Baptist Academy in 1998 when his father, William S. Beith, resigned after being arrested for soliciting a male undercover police officer for oral sex."[32]

When William "Andy" Beith was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison "The judge said Beith's strict upbringing may have been a factor in his sexually deviancy."[33] Arbusto 12:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Source [34] and this [35]. Also a interesting tid bit from the latter article, "The school and church are now run by Beith Sr.'s son-in-law Darryl Crotz (married to William Beith's eldest daughter Cindy), both of whom are also HAC graduates." Arbusto 06:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to doubt those sources, a transcript search:

"William Beith, former school principal accused of kidnapping and molesting young student, under arrest. Former fellow Beith church members say Beith has been exposed to unorthodox religious training. Jim Acosta reports. Beith is former follower of a controversial preacher at First Baptist Church. Visual - Hyles-Anderson College, where Beith attended school under the pastor. Jerry Kaifetz, former Liberty Baptist member, discusses Hyle's influence on Beith and church where Beith was school principal, Liberty Baptist Church."

Source: (WBBM-TV The Channel 2 News at Ten, May 24, 2001, Thursday 10:00) wbbm22000524. This did make big national news when Beith was arrested in Las Vegas with the child. Arbusto 06:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is curious, that transcript came from LexisNexis. Arbusto 07:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Beith is not a notable person. And claiming that his pedophilia stemmed from attending Hyles-Anderson college is one of the most retarded comments I've seen this week. Vivaldi (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Address that statement to the press, the criticis, the judge, and Jerry Kaifetz of Liberty Baptist member. Beith, as the numerous (hundreds), national articles in the lexisnexis database attests, he is ntoable and so are the claims surrounding him and Hyles' teachings. To compare notablity in the press: Beith gets hundreds whereas Jack Hyles gets less than a hundred press mentions. Arbusto 18:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did this get removed?

The Richmond Times quoted ex-Hyles follower and later critic, Robert Sumner, who said "Jack Hyles, runs his church in an authoritarian, almost 'cultist,' manner." Sumner's paper "The Biblical Evangelist, published in Ingleside, Texas, devoted the lion's share of a 24-page issue this month to what it headlined as "The Saddest Story We Ever Published" detailing Nischik's charges and editor Robert Sumner's contention that Rev. Hyles has strayed from biblical teaching and into cultlike mind control. According to the Richmond Times Sumner's article had over 100 allegations. Among the various allegations was that Hyles had "sex satellites" in Petersburg, Beaumont, Texas; and Anniston, Alabama". This matter also came up again in 2001 when WBBM-TV The Channel 2 News at Ten on May 24, 2001 reported the actions of former Hyles-Anderson student William "Andy" Beith age thirty one was arrested in Las Vegas, NV after a nationwide FBI search pursued kidnapping and rape charges involving Beith's eleven year old student. The report noted "Former fellow Beith church members say Beith has been exposed to unorthodox religious training." When Beith was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison "The judge said Beith's strict upbringing may have been a factor in his sexually deviancy."[36]

In terms of press, Beith has received more national mainstream press than Hyles. Beith's conduct and education at Hyles-Anderson has been connected by critics and the press (only the press is cited to be fair in the article). This removal is part of the continuing attempt to downplay criticism that have occured in the last two decades. Arbusto 23:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no debate or mention for removing the paragraph. Arbusto 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

burglary rampage and rape

Why has this been getting removed:

The Northwest Indiana Times reported three former Hyles-Anderson students where arrested for a burglary "rampage" in January 2004 after the President of the college helped obtain a confession from two former students.[37] A realtor entered a Merrillville house she was selling only to find several times missing. She was later contacted by James Clement Jr., attorney for the First Baptist Church of Hammond, and said "he had received information about the Merrillville burglary from church officials."[38] Two of the former students confessed to school president Jack Schaap. One of the former students charged in the crime was charged with rape with a fourteen year old, but the rape charge was dropped and he plead guilty to burglary.[39]

Involving the current president, the school's lawyers, former students, and the local community. Considering this is a Christian school that "has strict rules that forbid what it believes are immoral acts" including forbidding associatations with "liberals" something like this is news. Arbusto 06:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The material is being removed because it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about Hyles-Anderson College. Every college and university has rules that prohibit its students from burglary and theft, but we do not litter encyclopedia articles at University of Texas, Harvard, Yale, Southern, or any other college with a list of crimes that former members have committed. These former students are not notable and they should not be in an encyclopedia article. Vivaldi (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice comparison, but Hyles-Anderson isn't Harvard or even accredited. It has "rules of conduct" with students involved in immoral behavior with the school's president helping get confessions surrounding the immoral behavior that affects the local community. Arbusto 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

All colleges have "rules of conduct" that state that their students shouldn't burglarize. All colleges have students that have committed burglaries. The students that were charged in the burglaries were not notable and they weren't even students -- they were former students when they allegedly committed the crimes and they were former students when they were charged. These former students weren't even under an obligation to follow any HAC rules of conduct. There is no reason this should be in the article about HAC. It is unprecedented for a college to have the crimes of non-notable former students included in an encyclopedia article about the college. Vivaldi (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

revert by Arbustoo

This revert by Arbustoo undid two typo fixes, one link correction, and one wikilink. Hopefully we can agree on the correct spelling of words, and that it is appropriate to wikilink things like Textus Receptus. Vivaldi (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the criticism of Jack Hyles links and commentary from this article. Criticism of Jack Hyles belongs in the Jack Hyles article and not in the Hyles-Anderson College that he founded. There is no reason to include all the same tired and unproven accusations in this article and rehash the arguments in 4 seperate locations on Wikipedia. This is unencyclopedic behaviour. Vivaldi (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon admonishes editors

Rather Than using your God given time to gossip about people, wether the gossip be true or not; try using that time to reach others for the cause of Christ. In short turn off your computer and go soul winning. That's what I'm going to do! anonymous comment left by 24.127.38.79 (talk · contribs · logs) on 27 July 2006.

Schaap's doctorate

I'm fine with Schaap's honorary doctorate being listed if any evidence can be found that he was ever granted one. His official biography only says that he earned a bachelor's and a master's, but does not say that he ever earned or was granted a doctorate of any sort, it only refers to him in name as "Dr. Schaap". I've searched as hard as I can on google and cannot find any sources. If anyone can find a source to allay my concerns, listing his D.D. would be fine with me. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary provided you with a link:

http://hylesanderson.com/about_us/dr_jack_schaap

Now read the first line under his name, "B.S., M.Ed., D.D.", then read the first line of the bio, "Pillsbury Baptist Bible College; Hyles-Anderson College, B.S., M.Ed., D.D.;" This means he attended Pillsbury, then got his B.S., M.Ed, and D.D. from Hyles-Anderson. Since he was working at the University at the time and it is an unaccred school, it isn't a real impressive degree, but he does it have it. And as the chancellor of the school he is probably granted the authority to grant degrees to himself if he wants. In any case, he does have a D.D. from HAC. Vivaldi (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

His DD was added recently to that page because I checked it out a little while ago. It would be nice to have a year, and such about it. It seems suspicious that it was added[40] without a year or any details. A year would tell us if he awarded himself a "degree." C56C 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being on there, but it does need a source, so I'm going to mark the D.D. title with a citeneeded in the interim, until a source is found. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kuzaar. It is strange to cite a biography which goes into detail on all of this education, but simply has a "D.D." without any information. Usually, a person's crowning educational achievement is their doctorate, which is completely absent from his biography with the exception of the two intials by his name and two intials in the header.

Thus, a better source is needed. I have no problem with it staying, but a citation needed tag will encourage those familiar with Schaap to add a source. Honestly, I fail to see why anyone would be opposed to that. C56C 08:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, per Vivaldi's comment on his reversion of "honorary" and the citeneeded tag, the burden of proof is on the person who would assert the fact. I'm extending the benefit of a doubt that he has at least an honorary D.D. in the name of civility and trying to make the article better. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely changed it so that the claim is that the Hyles-Anderson College says that he received a doctorate degree from the school. That is a statement of fact that is easily verifiable by visiting the link provided. You don't need a "cite needed" when there is already a citation that specifically proves the claim that is made. Read the HAC website, it says he has a D.D. and calls him Dr. Hyles numerous times. If you want to claim that his doctorate degree is bogus, or that it is merely an honorary degree, or that he never really achieved it, then all you need to do is insert that information in the article and CITE YOUR SOURCES! There is a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, and that standard is Verifiability. Vivaldi (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, then I won't claim that it is honorary, something that I was doing only in an effort of good faith toward you. However, you have yet to provide any documentation citing when or from where he received his doctorate. His biography on the website you have linked does not, either, and claims only that he has earned a Master's. It calls him doctor, but does not provide any verifiable evidence that he has a doctorate, honorary or otherwise. The reason I had listed it as honorary, as I have said several times on your talk page, is that it is not listed in his academic history in the biography. In a few days I will remove the claim of a D.D. if a source is not provided. --13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The college says he has a D.D. from Hyles-Anderson, right at the top of his bio. Vivaldi (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed Vivaldi's footnote that referred to him as a dr [41] I believe even if the page were titled that (its titled "Hyles-Anderson College") it is not proper to call him a Dr. Vivaldi putting the title in is strange considering he wrote "I think Wikipedia should not just ignore his title entirely, which appears to be what many editors would do."[42]

I got that title from this page, which lists the link to the bio as "The Administration of Hyles-Anderson College" and underneath that "Dr. Jack Schaap - Chancellor".

Vivaldi there are some real issues here. I think a better citation needs to be sought. What year was the doctorate? Does Hyles-Anderson give Doctorates in Divinity? I mean it has Hyles-Anderson offers Bachelor of Science degrees in the following major concentrations: Pastoral Theology, Pastoral Assistant, Missions, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, General Studies, Music Director, and Music Education, but correct me if I am wrong I don't see any DD offered. Does he have a DD for "Marriage and Motherhood"? C56C 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that he has a D.D. or that his D.D. is worth any salt. I'm only claiming that Hyles-Anderson says he has a D.D. on their webpages. There is a verifiable source to prove that claim. Vivaldi (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with C56C. If what he claims is true and HA does not offer a doctorate in divinity, then the claim is spurious. I am uncomfortable with crediting him with a doctorate degree, honorary or otherwise, if the only claim he can demonstrate to it is that he is casually referred to as "Doctor" on the biography page at HA's site. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The link Vivaldi supplied does say Hyles Anderson D.D. giving the impression he was awarded a Doctorate of Divinity from Hyles-Anderson. But it needs to be qualified that there is no record of anyone having a DD from Hyles Anderson other than an honorary award. They have no divinity program, no doctorate programs, and strangely a few months back the page Vividli sourced did not mention the doctorate even though it referred to his as "Dr."

You are under the mistaken impression that it is the job of editors to uncover the "Truth". It is not. What you are doing is engaging in, is what is called "Original Research", which is not allowed to enter Wikipedia. Please read the policy at WP:V (the standard for inclusion is verifiability and not truth). The claim is that Hyles-Anderson currently says he has a doctorate degree -- that is a true and verifiable statement. If you find a verifiable source that says something else, then put that information in the article -- AND CITE YOUR SOURCES. Vivaldi (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All this could be avoided with a better source though that directly states subject, years, etc. I mean for some people you can find out who was on their dissertation committee.C56C 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The school is the perfect source to determine whether or not the school says he has a D.D. Should you ask Arbustoo (talk · contribs) or FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) instead? Vivaldi (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can the school be considered a reliable source if they have been unable to provide any records pertaining to the reception of the degree itself? I think that the question of the reliability of the source and the verifiability of the claim are what is at question here, not merely if the school credits him as having a D.D. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The school is most certainly a reliable source for WHAT THE SCHOOL SAYS. Whether or not their claims are "True" is not a matter for a Wikipedia editor to decide. The standard for inclusion is not "Truth" but verifiability. And certainly when the claim is that the school has said something, then citing their own documents is sufficient to show that they have said it. Please read what WP:RS says about using sources in articles about themselves. Vivaldi (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Program Exists?

Some reverting seems to be going on over whether a DD program exists. Do any of you have a list of what programs do exist? If not, I don't think it is correct to put that it doesn't exist. I assumed it was "honorary" but I never knew how it all works. --Kalmia 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume its honorary as well, but as Vivaldi asserts above we cannot put that in without a source. What we can put in is that there is no such degree mentioned in Hyles-Anderson's catalog or website. The school catalog PDF file page 57-80 does not mention any DD program or any doctorate. Those pages say Hyles-Anderson offers Bachelor of Science degrees in the following major concentrations: Pastoral Theology, Pastoral Assistant, Missions, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, General Studies, Music Director, and Music Education. The college offers Associate of Science degrees in Education and in Marriage and Motherhood. Arbusto 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think with some of these disputed issues on here I, or someone else, should contact the school to ask for a response. --Kalmia 02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but its got to be documented to go in the article. Arbusto 07:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding, Vivaldi's continued revert war. There is no documention of the "school" having the program, but there is documentation of what they do have. You are demanding proof of something not existing. Do you understand that is illogical? I can't provide a source that they don't offer a PhD in Biochemistry either. I can tell you what they have, and Biochem isn't one of the degrees.

You can't say they don't offer biochemistry if there isn't a source that says they don't offer biochemistry. What you are doing is called Original Research and there is a specific policy at WP:NOR that forbids it. You are making the assertion that the school catalog is a full and complete listing of all offerings of the school, but there is no source to back up that claim. So now you make the assertion that something doesn't exist -- however you are the only person on earth that appears to be making that claim. If it is a true claim -- and a notable claim worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia -- then someone else that is reliable and verifiable would have said it. Vivaldi (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What year did Schaap graduate? What's his dissertation on? As you agreed to on your RfC please come to a consensus on this talk before you make anymore reverts. Arbusto 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you find information that is verifiable that has been published by a reliable source, then feel free to add it to the article. I doubt that Schaap was required to do anything, let alone a dissertation, to his D.D., but I can't add that information to the article, because that is my own opinion and its based on my own conclusions drawn from original research. Vivaldi (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't say things don't exist just because you, Arbustoo, cannot find them . Every claim in the article must be sourced to a verifiable source. It is not illogical to require that claims of non-existence be subject to WP:V. And I'm not requiring you to "prove" anything. It is not the job of Wikipedia to "prove" anything. The standard for inclusion is not "Truth", but rather verifiability. You can learn more about this at WP:V. I suggest you read up on the policies again, a few of them have been worked on since you last quit editing here. Vivaldi (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, it isn't OR to assume that a school doesn't have programs it doesn't list in its course book and such. That's not OR, that's common sense. JoshuaZ 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also common sense that when Hyles-Anderson College says that a number of individuals have received a D.D. from the school that they must have some sort of manner of granting the D.D., rather it be honorary or what-not. It is clear that HAC says that Schaap and a number of other profs have received a D.D. from the school. What procedure do they go through to get the D.D.? Who knows? If you find out, then put in the article, and site your sources. Vivaldi (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ: It is appropriate to say "The college course catalog does not mention the requirements for obtaining a D.D. degree" and cite the course catalog for that claim. However you can't say the program doesn't exist at all unless you have a source for that claim. We don't know why HAC gives the D.D. degree to people, but they obviously do, since 11 of their faculty have been granted the degree by the school. Vivaldi (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say he earned, received, was awarded a DD. You are basing your assumption that two letters, DD, are by the schools name, and his MA and MA. While those letters are assumed to be a doctorate, the school does not offer that degree, and there is no record of them ever offering it other than honoary awards. Arbusto 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the claim that the website claims he has a D.D. today. I did this because, to put it simply, while it does credit him as having a D.D., it is not a reliable source regarding his D.D. as it has no verifiable information regarding it, unlike his B.S. and Master's. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kuzaar; we need a better source to include it. Arbusto 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim isn't that Schaap has a D.D. The claim is that Hyles-Anderson College says lists him as having a D.D. from the school. That is verifiable information and it deserves to be in the article. For all I know, he doesn't have one, but the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but rather Verifiability. And certainly, Hyles-Anderson College is an authoritative source on which people they have granted a D.D. degree to. To claim that they aren't a reliable source for that information is ridiculous. Vivaldi (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The current course catalog of Hyles-Anderson here lists the following 11 faculty and administration with a D.D. degree from HAC: Jack Schaap, Wendell Evans, Ray Young, Darrell Moore, Bob Hooker, Eddie Lapina, Samuel Sprunger, Dave Douglass, Robert Marshall, Roy Moffitt, and Bill Schutt. Obviously H-A-C has some sort of program or procedure or something that grants a D.D., because they say in their own course catalog that 11 of their professors got a D.D. from there. There are a couple of explanations for why they would list people with a D.D. and not explain the D.D. program in their catalog. (This is speculation for discussion, not inclusion) (1) Perhaps H-A-C no longer offers a D.D. degree. Perhaps each of these people were involved in a D.D. program that is no longer offered by H-A-C. (2) Perhaps the D.D. is an honorary program that is only granted to a very limited number of people and not the general public. (3) Perhaps H-A-C is completely lying and the individuals don't have a D.D. at all, but they want to make it look like they have advanced degrees to make the school look better.

I'm not sure what the requirements are for the H-A-C D.D. degree, and I'm fairly certain that the value of such a degree isn't worth much outside a very limited range of career choices, but it is very inappropriate for editors to remove the fact that H-A-C has granted the D.D. to certain people when the evidence is readily available.

Perhaps we can work out a compromise here where all the necessary information is included:

"Even though the course catalog of Hyles-Anderson College does not discuss the existence of a Doctoral program, nor the requirements for attaining that degree, the same catalog shows that 11 of the faculty and administrators received a D.D. from Hyles-Anderson, including their Chancellor, Jack Schaap".

Would that be suitable to everyone? Vivaldi (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kuzaar and I want it left out until a source can satisfy the issue. Not only did you put in back in after it was removed and put it in without ANYONE else's agreement, you also included a "Dr" title in the footnote without any indication that the use of the title is based solely on your perception of two letters DD. I think it should be removed until a better source is produced. Your edit once again went against consensus.

Amusing that you speak for Kuzaar about a compromise edit that he hasn't even commented on. Do you specifically ask him about this compromise edit or what? Vivaldi (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I want it left out until a source can satisfy the issue. A better source than what? The claim is that the college says they gave them a D.D. That claim is easily proven. I provided a source, namely the college catalog that is written by the college. There can be no better source than that for that specific claim. Claiming that you and Kuzaar are what determines "consensus" is entirely unreasonable. You don't own this article and a group of two people is not "consensus". Why don't you ask JzG what he thinks about the addition? Vivaldi (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The standard inclusion is WP:V. The two letters included in a biography hardly meets that standard. Use of the title Dr. doesn't meet the WP:V either. Many people falsely use that title. In fact Hyles-Anderson has a history of falsely using that title, such as Jack Hyles-- an honorary award from an unaccredited school. That doesn't mean Hyles has a doctorate in the conventional sense. Arbusto 06:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim is that the college says that he has a D.D. That is VERIFIABLE. The claim is not that he actually has a D.D., which may in fact be a disputed claim. And I am not advocating that we refer to Hyles or Schaap in the article by their titles Dr. Jack Hyles and Dr. Jack Schaap. However, it might be relevant to note that these individuals actual use those titles in their real life and tout them to the public, just like is done in the article about Jerry Falwell. It is appropriate to note that these folks are touting their degrees, even if they aren't worth diddly-doo-doo. In fact, I think that noting this only helps your cause to defame these men, since it shows them to be self-centered, egotistical, and hypocritical all at once. Vivaldi (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Location

I noticed that someone else changed the location. The source you cited also is a newspaper that incorrectly wrote that I am a candidate in the November election. The county lists it as unincorporated St.John Township.[43]. If that link doesn't work then go to http://in-lake-assessor.governmaxa.com/propertymax/rover30.asp? then click [Guest Access] then click "Start your search...". Click "owner" on the left side of the screen then enter "Hyles" and search.

Also what is labeled "Physical address" should be "Postal address". Another example of the post office doing this is part of Hammond, Indiana is considered to be part of Whiting, Indiana by the post office. I'll try to get a township map posted. --Kalmia 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I just couldn't find any source that claimed it was in St. John Township, and I found one that contradicted that claim, so I changed the article and put in my source. Obviously the county assessor is a better source of information. Thanks for providing that link. Vivaldi (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of degree titles may be illegal?

Where is it illegal for one to utilize a degree title obtained from an unaccredited bible college? Has anyone been convicted of using a degree title from a bible college? If not, then this claim seems highly out of place. I can see having a warning for people that the school is unaccredited, but suggesting that if they go to the school and start calling themselves, Dr. So-and-so, that they may be arrested, now that seems way out of line. Unless I missed this happening somewhere? Vivaldi (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:School accreditation, the page you have found a new interest in, has some citations. Arbusto 06:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do any of the laws make it illegal for a graduate of an non-accredited religious school to call themselves "Dr. Falwell" or something of that nature? Will we soon see Dr. Falwell behind bars?Vivaldi (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, for that matter, has anyone ever been arrested after testifying about their doctoral status from an unaccredited university? I have a strong suspicion you cannot find one single person that has ever received even a ticket for this so-called "crime" (excepting cases where the person also lied about the nature of the degree). I'd also note that the full-context of nearly all the laws I reviewed in the accredition article seemed to specifically exclude religious institutions and/or provided other means to obtain exemptions from the law other than accreditation. I just think warning people that they could be breaking the law is a tad excessive. Of course, you feel you own the article, so you get to insert whatever tripe you want with impunity, whilst simultaneously reverting everything I ever insert, even those edits specifically called "good" by other editors.Vivaldi (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of properly sourced claims by Arbustoo

Hyles-Anderson's course catalog says that 11 of their faculty have been granted a D.D. by Hyles-Anderson. This fact is easily proven by reading the course catalog. I have provided a link. Arbustoo has again improperly removed this claim. Even his friend JzG cited this particular edit as an example of my good editing and willingness to compromise. It is obvious now that Arbustoo believes he owns these articles and that he intends to revert any edit that I make regardless of the merits. I would encourage Arbustoo to read the policies about verifiability. The claims inserted in the article are easily proven to meet the standards of inclusion in Wikipedia. The claims are relevant to the topic at hand and the information comes directly from the topic of the article.Vivaldi (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my concerns about the school's reliability as a source for claims regarding Doctorate titles given, as long as there is no verifiable information regarding the granting of the titles themselves. If there was a source provided saying "On such-and-such a date, Hyles-Anderson awarded such-and-such a Doctorate of Divinity", I would be far more confident of the reliability of the school as a source. As it stands, this question has gone unaddressed for nearly half a month on this discussion page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)