Talk:Cedarville University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cleaning Up[edit]

The Cedarville University page seems to have been the target of continuing misuse... some of which is vandalism and some of which hedges on it. It seems like the "Traditions" section is composed nearly entirely of material which isn't verifiable, and the section seems to encourage this sort of material. Maybe we ought to remove that section totally.

Similarly, the Student Organizations section desperately needs trimming.

Referenced material has been deleted without cause (Criticisms and Controversies) and probably ought to be added back in.

Hampshire2004 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added back in the Criticisms and Controversies page; any removals that large need justification.

Hampshire2004 (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The following 'traditions' section has been removed from the page. It was skyrocketing and seemed to encourage vandalism. Furthermore, none of the traditions listed have any reference whatsoever and whether or not they qualify for notability in an encyclopedia article is hazy. In case any of the material from it is needed (for example, if information on the cardboard canoe race is ever added into the CU WP article), here it is.

  • 500 Miles: song sung as freshman or new transfer during the Getting Started weekend. Motions are made based on place of origin sung to the song 500 Miles by the Proclaimers.
  • Acoustic Fire: live music shows in the Hive (the campus grill)
  • Canoe Race: freshman engineering students construct canoes out of cardboard and packing tape. The first group of students to row across the lake wins the race (and gets an A).
  • Elliv: annual campus talent competition with accompanying award show. Some students choose to dress formally for Elliv, however, most students wear costumes that are humorous or simply bizarre.
  • HALO Film Festival: annual showing of films made by university students
  • Laking: engaged male students are thrown into the campus lake by their friends
  • Lawlor / Hill Football: Annual flag football game on the gridiron where not only reputations are on the line, but a year's bragging rights as well.
  • Lawlorpalooza: An exciting night of competition between each unit in Lawlor.
  • Printy Unit Wars: An exciting night of competition between each unit in Printy.
  • The Rock: students paint different slogans and messages on a large rock that sits by the student center.

Hampshire2004 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

There were a bunch of pictures dumped into the article with little organization. So as to preserve the links to the pictures, I'll place the tags here. A better idea would be to create a Wikimedia Commons category for Cedarville University to organize the pictures.

[Image:CedarvilleOldMainSepiasmallb.JPG|thumb|Cedarville College "Old Main" building ca. 1904-1908]
[Image:CedarvilleAlfordSepiasmall.JPG|thumb|The first Presbyterian Church in Cedarville, later purchased by Cedarville College. Gutted and renovated over the years. Used as Gymnasium, and then theater/class space and known as Alford Auditorium. This picture ca. 1904-1908]
[Image:Cedarville Footballsmall.JPG|thumb|Cedarville College football team ca. 1904-1908 in front of former Old Main front entrance]
[Image:CedarvilleBasketball001small.JPG|thumb|Cedarville College Basketball team ca. 1907/'08]
[Image:Cedarville sportssmall.JPG|thumb|Cedarville College Male students in front of former front entrance of "Old Main" ca. 1904-1908]

Hampshire2004 02:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Traditions/Student Orgs[edit]

What exactly is considered notable by Wikipedia standards?

Hampshire2004 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If student orgs are continually added, the section could get out of hand; same thing with the traditions section. The sections are going to need to be trimmed down to just the most notable orgs.

Hampshire2004 03:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm... We're probably going to have to trim both sections; it looks like they're getting out of hand. Any comments?

Hampshire2004 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violation in 'History' section[edit]

The recent addition to the "History" section of the page was reverted (by me without logging in) because all of the material on it was a direct copy of the article it referenced - on Cedarville's website. This goes against Wikipedia policy, copyright law, and the statement underneath the submission box saying "Do not copy text from other websites without permission."

Material from the page can and should be used (the page is a definitely good source material), but not directly copied.

Hampshire2004 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Drivel[edit]

This article is so full of propaganda drivel that it's barely even worth existing (and even that's debatable). It is a series of lists dressing up Cedarville as some sort of paradise of a college. Here's my own list. A list of topics that would actually make some sense in this sort of an article.

- History of Campus Development
- History of Presidents
- History of Founding
- Cedarville In-jokes
- An unbiased look/list of the rules (Chapel, curfew, dress code, etc.)
- Sports History/Statistics

That way some high school senior can get a real perspective of the school instead of being fed more polished up "facts."


Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article serves as an advertisement rather than a objective look at Cedarville University. 131.238.229.154 28 June 2005 21:06 (UTC)

The previous Wikipedian (131.238.229.154) is absolutely right. In fact, if you visit Cedarville's website, the content was lifted directly from the "About Us" section. The changes made, though major, are an attempt to return NPOV and remove the marketing fluff. dkennert-7/11/05

You're stating the obvious, as your 'discovery' didn't require much sleuthing. Many statements on Harvard's wiki, for example, are lifted from harvard.edu, as school officials have campus data that cannot be obtained from an outside source - hence the revert. Structural edits to the page can be made, along with objective views of the school, however, removing multiple sections of the page simply because you don't like them accomplishes even less. Further, if you are cannot confirm your claims, do not vandalize the page with removed sections and added statements along the lines of "compulsory public service," which are absolutely false. -Gump (7/12/05)


Here's what I was attempting to do: I'm a CU grad, and stumbled upon the CU wiki entry. I was concerned that the page had a NPOV banner on it. I read the talk and thought the previous Wikipedian had a point. In fact, recalling the content of CU's website, realized that I had read the information before, so I went and checked. No grand sleuthing performed and none claimed. Instead, it was just a statement of fact. It seems to me that CU’s website is the place for the sales pitch, not Wikipedia, especially if that sales pitch is going to be watered down by a NPOV banner. Interestingly, though “statements” from Harvard’s wiki entry may be taken from their web page, it is not lifted in toto, like CU’s. Hence, your revert is based on an apples to oranges comparison.

Further, I did not remove “multiple sections.” I renamed sections to be less bias – and condensed where the section itself lacked objectivity (i.e., “Spiritual Growth”). Additionally, the "added statements" are not false -- I had to do my "voluntary service" just like every other student. They even highlight the "voluntary service" in their version of the wiki entry -- "volunteering for service in any of over 150 local and worldwide ministries such as. . . ." In my time at the 'ville the only voluntary part of service was choosing the ministry in which I participated. My participation in one of the approved services was never an option. In fact, it was compulsory . . . as were the Bible classes, as were daily chapel services, as were church services on Sunday and mid-week (we had to fill out a sheet every Monday!). Have these policies changed? If so, when? And, if so, I think an interesting section (and appropriate for Wikipedia) to add to this entry would be a history of Cedarville, including the “years of compulsory service.”

The assertion that my changes were vandalism is quite misplaced. In fact, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I was attempting to correct what appeared to be a pretty straight forward NPOV problem by the presentation of a less marketing driven statement about CU. Perhaps the way to do that is to comprise – remove the “official” Cedarville sanctioned language (they don’t own the content here) and come to agreement on what which words dilute objectivity (e.g., “Outstanding”).

dkennert-07/12/05


Interesting discussion- allow my two cents. First of all, a CU graduate from 1993, I was not surprised to see the marketing machine of CU in force here in Wikipedia. While the sales pitch of CU may in one sense be objective, the actually been-there-lived-it ojbectivity is very different. For instance, the "voluntary service" experience may, as mine did, prove to be excellent in and of itself. YET, the regulations placed upon each a paying adult to perform or attend religious services, with definite discipline if not documented correctly, left me eyeing the term "voluntary" with skepticism.

The flip side of the marketing spin is the rigid lines of thought that evidences itself in a dogma that pervades every facet of life at the 'ville. As long as this dogma is completely accepted and never questioned (irony- see definition of University) either in the classroom or dormitory, the student will find peaceful solidarity with the "objective" statements made in Wikipedia.

I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but should be advertised as being just as "objective" as the sqaure footage of the campus.

einzig- 07/16/05

NPOV edit on 12 August 2005[edit]

I've just made a major revision of this article. It was basically a complete rewrite because the original was a copyright violation from the University's website (and subsequently full of POV). This new article's still missing information on its history, and the athletics subsection could use a little expansion. -D. Wu 05:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Nice rewrite....question: is CU SBC? I thought they were GARBC -- when did that change? dkennert 8/12

Cedarville's more closely related now to the SBC than the GARBC, although it retains a partnership with both. It joined SBC November 2002. I've added the relevant information. -D. Wu 03:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Motto question[edit]

When I was there, the official motto of the school was "For the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ." A search of there website yields little when looking for a motto, although this copy of a program (http://www.cedarville.edu/inauguration/inauguration.pdf) notes that the Baptist Bible Institute took the surrounded the Presbyterian seal (Cedarville was originally Presbyterian) with "For the Word..." Did the motto change to the hearts/minds/friends/service when Cedarville went from a college to a university? dkennert 13 Aug 05 @ 19:30


History Section[edit]

Need to ferret out the details about Cedarville as a Presbyterian school, Baptist Bible Institute, and its years as a college prior to it being a university. dkennert 13 Aug 05 @ 19:50


The university has sections on its website regarding past presidents and a brief history section; it doesn't look as though there's much else available electronically as far as the presidents are concerned.

Also, there's a a library article on the township which has a small bit of information on the development of the university. Hampshire2004 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

GARBC[edit]

Cedarville is no longer affiliated with the GARBC. The GARBC dropped their support mostly because of its affliation with the SBC. I don't really know the details however, it would be nice if someone who does could edit the article. -2004 Cedarville Grad, 8-19-05

from the GARBC website:

"A motion was made and seconded that the Council of Eighteen present the reasons for the decision not to associate with Cedarville University with special attention given to the Biblical statements and principles that warrant such a decision; that this presentation be made publicly to the fellowship of churches at the 2006 GARBC Annual Conference; and that messengers at the Conference be given the opportunity by vote to express their support for or dissent from the Council's presentation. The motion further directed that copies of the Council's presentation be sent to all Fellowship churches not less than 90 days prior to the beginning of the 2006 GARBC Annual Conference. The motion passed."

This motion was dated June 30 -- the language implies that "the decicion not to associate" is a done deal, and now the leaders of the GARBC are proceeding to a fuller explanation of that decision before next summer. dkennert 9/12/2005 @ 15:30

GARBC considers fraternization with the Southern Baptists of Ohio to be "inconsistent with the Articles of Faith as adopted and practiced historically by the GARBC." An earlier example of their distancing themselves from Cedarville can be seen here: http://www.garbc.org/einfo/archives/2005/09/a_letter_from_t_1.html DaveGC 02/16/2006

I added some of this info with references into the Criticism section, although I do believe Criticism should probably be renamed to "Controversy." --Virgil Vaduva 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Not sure why the criticisms section was deleted, but I added it back in. Also, CU is now aligned with the SBC (not sure why the category was removed). This is stated on CU's website here.

Hampshire2004 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Audio Clips[edit]

The so-called controversial audio clips are "controversial" because they were recorded using illegal methods and were altered to defame the university. Presenting them here without context and without the full recording violates Wikipedia's objectivity standards. I have removed the link.

Academic Freedom[edit]

Besides being horribly written, this section was very obviously created by someone siding against the fired professors. (Which is hardly a neutral position!) The very title of this section, "Academic Freedom," is misleading and naive. The issue is not whether issues of "truth and certainty" may be discussed but whether they may be promoted. This is simply in line with Cedarville's doctrinal statement: teachers may not promote unbiblical views (unbiblical in the eyes of CU, anyway). Calling this a suppression of academic freedom is the height of absurdity. All schools claiming to provide a biblical education are going to hold to some view of the Bible. Therefore I can see no reason to keep this section. I'm removing it. Razzendahcuben 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Truth and Certainty, Faculty Issues[edit]

I created two sections dealing with these issues. I think I dealt with them in a very objective manner, hitting all of the important points. I am not good with Wikipedia editing so I have only provided direct links to pertinent web sites. They really should be cited as references and listed at the bottom. Anyway, it would also be good to mention that the administration's assertions are widely disputed---namely the assertions that the firings were "merely" inter-personal, and that the whole faculty shuffling was simply a planned restructuring. Razzendahcuben 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Razzen, the truth and certainty section seems pretty NPOV, but there are a couple of places where the words 'many people' are used, this seems to me to border on falling into the weasel words category. Perhaps it would be helpful to specify who the 'many' are: students, alumni, faculty, or reword those sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.57.132 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth and Certainty Redux[edit]

Please do not use blog-sourced references (which violate WP:V) and inserting the debate around truth/certainty within the article (which violate WP:COAT and WP:NOR). The Wikipedia is not the place in which to grind axes...--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

criticisms section[edit]

I noticed that the criticisms section was delete again. It would be better to add a neutrally flag than to delete a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.11.83.15 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that there's a bit of an edit war in this particular section, which seems to be dealing with a current situation on the campus. It seems that the different factions in the events are attempting to spin the events in different directions, whereas others just delete them. Perhaps it would be best to draft and agree on wording here on the discussion page and then move it to the article after all comments/revisions have been received. In all honesty, though, I wonder if it really belongs in the wiki article, since I'm sure every college/university has had infighting at times, and very little of it is really encyclopedic in nature.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I've just been reverting the straight-up deletions because they seem vandalistic in nature. Any that actually edit the content (or even provide reasons, for the most part) I leave. A good number of the edits (those from IP's beginning with 163.11) are from Cedarville's network itself. Most people are going to see it easier to delete things than to spend time revising it - I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is. Hampshire2004 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Having done a bit more research into this particular 'controversy', I am going to suggest that the truth/certainty/faculty section be removed, as it contains a good bit of hearsay & weasel-words (even the one newspaper article on the subject has been demonstrated to contain errors). Additionally, it appears that professional conduct issues (as suggested by the administration and, last week confirmed by the board of directors) are at the root of the dismissals, and not theological issues (truth/certainty) brought into the conversation at a later time. To be blunt, those professors dismissed were encouraging students to protest/petition for the removal of other professors and were openly critical of other faculty during their lecture time, in direct violation of university policy (and generally accepted professional conduct). Since there are legal proceedings relative to the dismissals, it is also incumbent that the article not contain facutal errors (such as hearsay) to avoid entangling Wikipedia in any impending lawsuits.
Any additions related to this matter shuold be thoroughly vetted here on the discussion page before adding them to the main article, to avoid the certain edit war (already in progress) escalation.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As a Cedarville Alum with family on campus who are familiar with the controversy, the Dayton Daily News article has a number of factual errors, and appears to be written by a fairly amateur reporter assigned to cover small colleges in the area. It definitely should not be considered a reputable source. Lyonscc is also right about the other two sources cited. The situation site is just a place where an ex-professor publishes personal gripes against the university and is self-published, violating several parts of WP:V. I can't read what is written at the other link, which requires a paid subscription, which also violates verifiablilty policy.--12.110.43.194 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cedarvillesituation.com as a source[edit]

All documentation from cedarvillesituation is self-published and does not meet the requirements of WP:V. Additionally, the newspaper cited differs substantially from the findings of the board of directors of Cedarville U. In reality, the titling of this as "truth and certainty" is misleading, as the 'situation' was about gross professional misconduct, not theological debate. The 'truth and certainty' nonsense was inserted as a "reason" for the dismissals months after they happened.

Regardless, Cedarville's notability is not related to this incident, nor do other similar colleges list their institutional dismissals and disagreements in Wikipedia. This is not a place in which to publicly grind axes.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. First, you are motivated by personal views shared by your good friend Virgil Vaduva, who has been exposed for his involvement with the University's administrators as a PR hitman at this website. You have a great desire to censor this content because of your personal agenda in promoting the 'emerging church' movement (look at his contribution history).
Second, the two newspapers (more than one) cited both state exactly what was placed in the article. Instead of making an assertion on behalf of a party that has a biased interest in seeing that content removed (the 'board of directors'), I have simply cited unbiased news sources -- and there are many, many more who continue to report on this issue as a legal issue surrounding the termination of tenured faculty members, not a collegiality issue as the PR department at the University would have you believe. An investigation by the AAUP is a HUGE, HUGE issue, Universities have lost accreditation because of investigations by this group.
Third, you improperly call this PDF document a 'blog' when it is a document signed by multiple individuals who have 500+ years combined service to the University. That is profound and it correlates with the unbiased news coverage cited before it.
Your desire to censor this material is connected to your relationship with Virgil Vaduva. I'm sure you'll cry for his help in this matter and that hacker will come to your aide. WIKI admins beware! 71.173.127.96 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that this user abuses WIKI policy by citing any and all policies possible to block content he personally objects to. For example, he cites Coatrack but it is not wiki policy AND per Coatrack this is not a 'nominal subject' and 'the event was a significant moment in the subject's life'. Second he cites FRINGE but the content passes the test as it has been published as stated in multiple major publications. Third he cites WP:V and yet the material CAN be 'attributed to a reliable, published source'...so you fail on all fronts. Your abuse of WIKI rules to oppress those who disagree with you is deplorable. Admins please protect this page with the controversy in tact. 71.173.127.96 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Cedarvillesituation.com is clearly identified as a 'self-published' source, and thus fails the test of WP:V. The Chronicle of Higher Education is a pay-subscription site, so its content cannot be validated (or verified for editorial scrutiny), so its usability is suspect, as well, per WP:V--Lyonscc (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The single news account your cite (DaytonDailyNews.com) does not read like a newspaper, but more as an advocacy piece - with admitted sourcing of 'secret recordings'. It is also at odds with the more recent findings and decisions by the Cedarville U board of directors, who agreed that the firings were a result of collegiality issues and not of theology. The collegiality issue (with one professor asking his students to try to oust another professor) is clearly a violation that would get you canned from any public and most private universities. The ensuing tempest-in-a-teapot over 'truth and certainty' had nothing to do with the substance of the dismissal (collegiality), and everything to do - if we are to believe the results of the investigation, rather than a disgruntled ex-professor with a blog - with grinding axes over old wounds. Regardless, it is hardly noteworthy in 100+ years of the college's history to document the firings of a couple of professors as encyclopedic.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no association with Virgil Vadua, though it appears we have edited some of the same articles (looking through the edit history, it does appear that he edited this page over a year ago (April 10, 2007), prior to the event you are noting. Cedarvillesituation.com is self-published, and - therefore - is not up to the quality of wikipedia standards per WP:V. Additionally, one of the links provided is a paid subscription site, which makes it questionable, and the other news story is so poorly written and absent of journalistic standards (re: secretly recorded conversation and advocacy slant).
Per a request of several users, I have done more research into the 'situation' and its notability - and much of what you are attempting to insert is slanted conjecture, at best, and seems to be tendentious editing on your part. This is a single issue in the long history of the campus, and in the scheme of things is not truly notable - AND - as documented to this point seems to be contrary to the facts of the situation as investigated and ruled upon by the board of directors of Cedarville U. What you have attempted to publish would fall under WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory.
Additionally, you seem to be a sock-puppet of user:Gump, which is in violation of Wiki policy, as well.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Your personal opinions and abuse of WIKI policy does not trump multiple reports from multiple news outlets AND Wikipedia allows content if it contains signatures and was composed by employees of the institution, and the PDF document satisfies both criteria. You have also violated the 3 revert rule, so you really do NOT care about Wiki policy. Last I am not 'Gump', further demonstrating your regular inaccuracy. 71.173.127.96 (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a self-published source, and it does not address the notability of Cedarville University, but rather a disagreement between a small segment of current and ex-staff members with an axe to grind. You can submit it to be authenticated as a source of Cedarville U's notability via the official wiki process, though it is likely to be rejected per WP:V:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to their notability; 2. it is not contentious; 3. it is not unduly self-serving; 4. it does not involve claims about third parties; 5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; 7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Again, I've never been to Cedarville, nor do I know any CU grads (unless they are and I don't know it). I was asked to check out this article and to help police edit wars a couple months ago, which I've tried to do as fairly as possible. As for my editing the ECM article, I don't belong to the ECM, but I am familiar with the movement and I am sympathetic to some of its conservative adherents and opposed to much of the disinformation and 'discernmentalist' exaggeration of the movement (as a whole) based upon its most liberal adherents. But I'm not sure how that relates to the firings of a couple professors who clearly were in violation of rules of professional conduct.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - I did not notice the 3RR on this issue - there have been so many insertions/re-insertions of this section, non-notable alumni (which appeared to be students inserting themselves or their friends), the section on the dancing policy and the GARBC section, that I've had this on my watchlist to try and keep some semblance of order. The very title of the section you reverted is in contention as well ('truth and certainty'), as it appears - and has been affirmed by CU's board of directors - that the firings were legitimate and in response to breach of professional conduct - not any theological debate. Again, as it is written, the section you have attempted to insert appears to be the result of axe grinding, with an attempt to use Wikipedia as part of the battlefield between multiple sides of what is, in the encyclopedic sense, not something for which Cedarville is notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As a Cedarville Alum with family on campus who are familiar with the controversy, the Dayton Daily News article has a number of factual errors, and appears to be written by a fairly amateur reporter assigned to cover small colleges in the area. It definitely should not be considered a reputable source. Lyonscc is also right about the other two sources cited. The situation site is just a place where an ex-professor publishes personal gripes against the university and is self-published, violating several parts of WP:V. I can't read what is written at the other link, which requires a paid subscription, which also violates verifiablilty policy.--12.110.43.194 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this story by the Chronicle of Higher Education satisfies your selective standards of professionality and reputable sources? 71.254.93.188 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have republishing rights from the copyright holder (which requires payment and registration in order to read the story)? Also, it doesn't seem like the text of the article supports that theology (or 'faith and certainty') was any part of the firing, but rather that the theological 'controversy' followed after the firings. As for notability, there are 60+ other Ohio colleges listed at the bottom of the article. Upon a cursory reading, NONE of them that list ANY lawsuits (past or present) of faculty or ex-faculty against their college, while Googling most of the colleges turns up multiple current and/or past lawsuits like this. So, not only are you in violation of copyright law, but your "source" doesn't pass muster for the commentary you are trying to hang on it, and the things you are wanting to document as "notable" don't seem to be notable for 100% of the other similarly listed colleges in Ohio. This would qualify the section you keep trying to insert as tendentious editing on a fringe topic.--12.110.43.194 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

An Agreement[edit]

Mr. Booher your desire to do what is right is commendable, but first of all, you've got the law wrong. Perhaps you missed the notice on this page: "PDF posted with author's permission."

Second, there are two reasons why there is no mention of similar situations at other Universities in Ohio (despite controversy in the Antioch College article): for any University Wiki that COULD contain similar information of a similar situation, the University is either far larger AND/OR doesn't have a similar controversy. Either one is an automatic disqualifier, especially at larger schools where controversy is common; it is far more noteworthy when it occurs on a small campus like Cedarville. And, of course, you actually have to have an unprofessional environment in which something like this is allowed to happen -- generally uncommon.

Since this is a "talk" page I'll treat to you like a respectable human being and make a deal with you (and any other sane individuals) -- I won't bother re-inserting the controversy into the article any further if you agree to advocate the replacement of the content IF a lawsuit is ever filed against the school regarding this 'situation' or something similarly related. At that point, if and only if that were to occur, it would surely be noteworthy and a very public matter.

After all, public lawsuits against Universities are well documented on Wikipedia, even termination-related lawsuits as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here -- for example. The public has a right to be informed and educated as to both sides of the argument if it were ever to come to that point. 72.86.1.14 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Expansion Stub[edit]

I tagged the entry with an expansion/stub tag. The article is not written well in my opinion and it has the potential to be expanded greatly; it does not flow well, the purpose/mission of the school was missing, etc. A lot of information is completely missing from the entry and the issue of "controversies" has not been settled between editors. Please work together to improve this entry and expand it so it becomes a quality article. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs a noted alumnus section. David Jeremiah has a wikipedia article, I am sure there are many others.Edmundosargento (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Reddit Thread[edit]

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/25i3y8/appeal_to_the_moderators_of_ratheism/chhldf5

Doesn't warrant inclusion in the actual article, but I thought I'd leave it here in case anyone is in a position do some actual digging into the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyracuseCA (talkcontribs) 11:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentalism[edit]

I'm the uncle of three recent CU grads, and have spent time on campus and reading the school's religious materials. It is not accurate to say the school adheres to the Christian tradition -- not all Christians embrace anything like what CU embraces. Rather it adheres to a form of Christian fundamentalism, and this article will not be precise unless that nuance is stated. User:CommonPleas CommonPleas 22:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent updates[edit]

Hi there. In trying to figure out how best to clean up the Student Organizations section, I went ahead and deleted the list of orgs and replaced it with a summary of CU's student orgs and linked to the page on CU's site that contains a detailed and searchable list of the orgs. Reasoning for doing so: 1) Current org list is up to 118, of which only 50 or so were listed in the Student Orgs section. 2) There were a number of orgs listed in the Student Orgs section (ie "ESV or Die") which are not sanctioned student orgs. Are others ok with this course of action?

Also, I added (and cited) information in the History section regarding former presidents, and slotted historic events chronologically to help it read better. I'm in the process of updating information across the entire article to reflect the most current available information, and am citing wherever possible. SilverZebra88 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted one of your edits that added liberal arts to the lead of this article where we describe the institution. The institution's Carnegie classifications don't seem to support that assertion, particularly the Undergraduate Instructional Program classification of "Professions plus arts & sciences, some graduate coexistence." In fairness to the institution, that classification focuses on degrees awarded so it's entirely possible for an institution to emphasize the liberal arts even in professional degree programs. In any case, I think we need some evidence to support this assertion. ElKevbo (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough! I'll look into it, and thanks for the explanation.SilverZebra88 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing Primary Sources Tag[edit]

The primary sources tag has been on the page since 2012. I have worked to add secondary sources with much of my recent updating/editing, and since 2012, others have done the same. At what point can we delete that tag? Thoughts from others?? SilverZebra88 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cedarville University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

merged content[edit]

Vexations (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)