Talk:Harding University

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


Campus Life[edit]

I'm assuming that the problem is with the idyllic portrayal of campus life. I can add some information about the University's rules, some of which already appear above, in order to balance the perspective. Someone will also need to remove a lot of P.O.V. This is my first time to use a Talk Page, so let me know if I did it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.125.78 (talkcontribs)

Kenneth Star[edit]

According to his page, he isn't actually an Alumni, because he transferred.

Look again at the definition of "alumni".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alumni

You look again at the definition of "alumni". fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.116.135 (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the above anonymous contributor has seen fit to call someone a "fool," I thought it would be a good idea to look at the definition of "alumni" and see if, indeed, Kenneth Star fits neatly into that category. Here's what the above link says in the first line of the entry: "An alumnus (pl. alumni) according to the American Heritage Dictionary is "a male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university." [1] " There you have it. Star is clearly a "former student" of Harding, and therefore, he's unequivocally an alumnus. Josh a brewer (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Notable Alumni[edit]

I did not mean to take Mitchell's name off the Notable Alumni list a while back. Thanks for putting it back up.

I added Micah Gifford back to Notable Alumni since he was the first US soldier from Harding who was killed in the war. We may not want to list all soldiers killed from Harding, but I think we should at least note the first. I tried to reword it so that he wasn't being noted for his football playing. Josh- Keep in mind that many would not view Ed Madden as notable since he is one of hundreds of active professors around the country who graduated from Harding. And there are many Harding graduates who are poets and participate in all sorts of activist activities. Certainly a soldier who died serving his country is at least as notable as Ed. Fmccown 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

But is Micah Gifford's listing encyclopedic? Should we also list the first Harding alumnus to loose their life in the Vietnam War and/or Korea War? --Ichabod 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fmccown, no doubt Micah Gifford was a good person, but dying in a war (first, second, last) does not make one's inclusion in an encyclopedia germane. Has he been nominated for a posthumous Medal of Honor, Purple Heart, citation for Valor, etc.? Ichabod makes a good point: are all former Harding students who died in wars worthy of inclusion? Are we going to limit those wars to US wars? Will civilian deaths count? What about non-wars: Panama? Haiti? Somalia? Ed Madden's accomplishments speak for themselves: he has achieved notoriety at Harding and in theological circles, as well as fame in the creative, scholarly, and political fields. Other professors who graduated from Harding and who have become similarly accomplished would be worthy of mention here as well.Josh a brewer 07:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My wife agrees with you guys. I personally think it is notable, but you're right- it's hard to draw a line. Being a numbers guy, I think the first of anything major (like war casualties) is rather notable. But I won't take it personally if I'm in the minority in that view and Micah Gifford is scrapped from the list. Josh- I'll have to trust your opinion of the "notableness" of Madden since you know him and I don't. Fmccown 00:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fmccown, I don't think Jimmy Allen belongs in the Notable Alumni. He might be a good guy, but most people would be like "Jimmy who?". -- Charleca 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Allen is one of the most popular evangelists in the Churches of Christ, the movement that Harding is affiliated with. But you're right, he may not be very well known outside of the movement. I guess if we want to define notable to mean "nationally recognized outside of the churches of Christ movement", then we should scrap Jimmy. Fmccown 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Allen belongs in the "Notable Alumni" section. His scholarship alone promotes him to "notable." It might help to take what one can from available resources, including his own biography from his webpage, and make a wikipedia page for Allen. He is an important transitional figure in the Churches of Christ, beginning his career at a time when most among that fellowship were primarily rural and revivalist in orientation and ending his career at a time when this was no longer the case. He might have baptized more people than anyone else in the Churches of Christ, though this might not mean much to people who are not familiar with Harding University.Josh a brewer 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Your comment supports my point. "...this might not mean much to people who are not familiar with Harding University." Most people have never even heard of Harding University nor of Jimmy Allen. Why include someone as "notable" if they're only known within a small circle?
Charleca 13:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a new section called "Notable alumni within the Churches of Christ"? Fmccown 15:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Charleca, perhaps you are correct, yet you prove too much. If "most people have never heard of Harding University," as you plausibly claim, then there shouldn't be an entry for it. However, wikipedia informs people of things about which they've never heard. Some would say that Allen has an international reputation. "Notable" seems vague. The question is "Notable to whom?" Fmccown--How would anyone define "within" and "the Churches of Christ" in your proposed category?Josh a brewer 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be difficult. Maybe someone could think of a better title that means "people that associate themselves with the churches of Christ would likely know this person because of the widespread and positive influence they have had on the movement". Maybe this is just opening up a huge can of worms and should be scratched. But I think Charleca has a point- all the members of the notable category are widely known outside of the churchs of Christ except Jimmy Allen. Many who know him would probably say Jimmy belongs in a category all his own. (joke) Fmccown 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me restate that my argument is not whether or not Jimmy Allen is a good guy and may have done some wonderful things. I can see some that some people may think very highly of him. Maybe you could create another category called something like "Prominent Figures Within the Church of Christ Associated with Harding University." I know that's a little long, but I think you get the idea.
Charleca 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we could put Jimmy Allen here: [1] It is a list of "famous" people with Restoration Movement "ties," which seems to be broadly construed. Josh a brewer 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Ed Madden should be removed from the notable alumni list. He may be an alumni, but he is neither notable nor worth recognition as an alumnus. He would likely repudiate his status as an alumnus if he were asked. I wish that someone who has the power to do so would remove his name from the list and see that it stays removed. Hotnhumid 22:06, April 18, 2007
Yes, but your POV doesn't matter. Surprisingly, Madden is not embarrassed about telling people that he went to Harding. His notability is self-evident, by the way, validated by Harding itself. Apparently they still think that he's "worth recognition as an alumnus." Perhaps you should tell the people in the English department to take his name off of that plaque on the wall, if he's so unworthy of note. However, an alum can be notable even if he doesn't adhere to the ideology of her or his former school. Josh a brewer 21:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I say if they have their own wikipedia article, then leave them on the list. If not, they aren't notable - so leave them off. - Charleca 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can have a Wikipedia article; that's not a good test for noteworthiness (Josh a brewer created Madden's article). There will always be graduates of Harding who stray from the values that Harding holds dear, but since Wikipedia is not associated with Harding and is trying to be a neutral source of information, we should not "ban" alumni unless that is the overall consensus. We should all do our best to keep NPOV and avoid making personal and political statements. Fmccown 13:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am aware that anyone can have an article. However, my thoughts came from the direction of "If the article meets the 7th criteria for deletion then they should not be included." I wasn't suggesting we "ban" people. (wow! that took a while to type trying to use vi commands) - Charleca 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I probably should have said almost anyone can have a Wikipedia article- there are some measures in place to prevent non-notable articles. Sorry- I didn't mean to direct my "ban" comment toward you... it was for Hotnhumid. (Don't you love vi? Makes you feel like you've jumped back in time or something. ;-) Fmccown 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain my recent deletions by ratifying Charleca's assertion (above) that an alum is "notable" only if s/he has his/her own wikipedia article. "If they don't have an article, then they aren't notable," he says, and this sounds reasonable to me. I left Jimmy Allen there because I don't think that dispute was ever fully resolved, and frankly, I hope someone will write his page soon.Josh a brewer (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeat NPOV vandalism of this page[edit]

Some contributors are repeatedly vandalizing this page by removing references to persons who are former students who do things the current Harding administration would not approve of, such as being a gay activist, or current and former faculty who hold positions (like creationism) that the administration does approve, but which are an embarrassment in the larger world.

If the contributions are intended to stir up controversy and are continually deleted, then possibly they are best left out of the article since this is not the place to make political or personal statements. Fmccown 19:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if they're accurate and being removed because someone at Harding doesn't want to be associated with them, then the information should stand. I'm less likely to believe that it's somebody random vandalizing the page, and more likely to believe that the Harding administration is trying to save face. Lee.crabtree 03:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because a statement is accurate doesn’t mean it’s appropriate. If someone were to amass a list of all convicted child molesters who graduated from school X and post that on the school’s Wikipedia page, certainly the administration, faculty, students, alumni, etc. would feel compelled to remove the entry. Is the information true? Yes. Is it appropriate? Most would say no. There is no easy way to define what is and is not appropriate, but I think we can apply this litmus test: If someone is posting to the school's article to make a personal statement or malign the school, it is probably not appropriate. The thought that there exists some type of administrative Wikipedia police at Harding is rather absurd. Fmccown 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a child molester or anyone even remotely analogous to such a monster on this list. To suggest otherwise would be to risk "a personal statement" that should not guide the editorial policy of an objective reference work.Josh a brewer 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly didn’t intend to call anyone a monster. Perhaps my example was poorly chosen. I was trying to make a point that just because something is factual does not make it appropriate. And we all have different views of what is appropriate. Like I noted above, I think Gifford is worthy of inclusion but others don’t. Wikipedia is really a jungle, and so we shouldn’t think it odd that lots of people will disagree with what the article says and will add or remove stuff based on their convictions. Obviously this article means a lot to Josh and me and others that regularly make contributions. My hope is that it doesn’t become a place to attack the ideals Harding stands for. Fmccown 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we might have a repeat offender for vadalism here. IP 192.133.129.164 has submitted (at least 2 times) POV content with the purpose of defaming some individuals related to Harding University. I would hate to have 192.133.129.164 blocked because it is a Harding University IP address. Students and staff can make great contributions to the article because they have first-hand experience. But, let's try to keep the submissions to factual content. The POV content that was posted is pretty bad (IMO), and I think some action needs to be taken - nothing harsh...just a warning or something to the offender. Charleca 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Degrees offered[edit]

I'm afraid that people are listing different majors and calling them degrees. These are degrees: Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and Bachelor of Science (B.S.). Almost all undergraduate degrees fall into these two categories. Majors and areas of specialization should not be called "degrees." This category should be revised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh a brewer (talkcontribs) 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

This is true. I didn't notice this before. However, this entry may get quite large if we included every major focus offered at the university. We may want to only include the various departments or "schools." Charleca 13:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There are probably more departments than degrees. I've revised this section.68.78.0.91 02:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Academics section should characterize the sort of Christian liberal arts education that one finds at Harding. Failing that, it should be left as Degrees offered, though that seems little more than a bland list. If we call it Academics, then it should describe the academic program. The text could also mention the Bible course requirement and point readers to University Policies and Code of Conduct for more details.Josh a brewer 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Code of Conduct re-evaluation[edit]

I think this section may no longer be relevant, especially since most of the rule changes were very minor. I don't want to delete it without getting some feedback, since the rules distinguish Harding from most schools, but is this really important to keep in the article? Jfwiii 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This section could be included in the "University Policies and Code of Conduct." Someone please explain what the phrase "students must complete approximately one Bible course per semester" means. What? Either you have to take one or you don't. Otherwise, an explanation is needed.Josh a brewer 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this can be removed. Every school will re-evaluate their code of conduct, and it is not really noteworthy. Fmccown 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There's certainly more to the Bible course requirement. I worded it as "approximately" because not all students must take a Bible course each semester. Only students enrolled in 8 or more hours face that requirement. Additionally, students must complete 8 hours of Bible in the liberal arts curriculum. However, students with more than 120 hours of credit and eight semesters of Bible already completed are not required to take a Bible class. Effectively, this means that most students will end up taking a Bible course every semester they are at Harding. So, there's a bit of complexity to this issue that I didn't really want to spell out in the article without making it sound too much like a catalog. There's probably a better word choice to be made there, though, and I suppose we could include all of these facts. Would it be worthwhile to have all that in the article? I'll consider how to make that read a little better. Jfwiii 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

American Studies Institute[edit]

It seems like the section about ASI speakers could be condensed and included in a broader section discussing the American Studies Institute in general. There may also a NPOV issue here with the phrase about Harding's conservative political ideology. While that statement may be well-founded based on the list of speakers, the university certainly doesn't advertise that it is conservative. This would be a minor issue if it were not political in nature, but that probably should at least be re-worded. Any thoughts? Jfwiii 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an impressive list, and it tells a person a lot about Harding University. How would you condense it? Who gets left out? What would a "broader section" on the American Studies Institute achieve, and why would that involve condensing the list? I've re-worded the sentence you mentioned. Specifically, I've removed the words "commitment" and "ideology," both of which are accurate, yet unofficial.Josh a brewer 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. That seems like a good edit, since it is fairly obvious that HU leans right, even if it's not official. I suppose the list wouldn't necessarily need to be condensed, but it would seem to make the article a better read if the section was itself about the American Studies Institute, rather than just the speakers. There should be enough material on the ASI webpage for a proper section about that aspect of the school, with the speaker list as a sub-category. If I get the chance, I'll write it up myself. Jfwiii 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job with that, Jfwiii.

Don Sonder-what's-his-name is NOTABLE? He worked for Wal-Mart and made a lot of money. What else? He doesn't even have his own article. Kenneth Cooper is also borderline worthy of mention here. He wrote a book, as far as I can tell. This does not make him notable.

This list of speakers is getting unwieldy. I might remove some names soon.Josh a brewer 06:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah...notability. This is the same argument I raised about some of the alumni listed. So I guess you already know my stance on your proposal. -Charleca 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'll go ahead and trim the list accordingly. Your principle is sound, though I suppose it is possible that someone could put up a name that's clearly notable yet lacks its own article. Josh a brewer 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there could be some exceptions to that "rule". -Charleca 11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Campus[edit]

What does this section add to the article that a link to the campus map would not accomplish? [2] The list of buildings seems particularly useless. There are white swings in which people like to sit?!?! This section should be deleted or rewritten.Josh a brewer 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the list of buildings is particularly useful. And the white swings...well...they are white swings - not necessarily encyclopedic material. -- Charleca 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Enrollment[edit]

I'm editing this page because the enrollment has changed since it was last updated. I assume this page could be updated twice a year, if only to keep the enrollment information up to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsnickety (talkcontribs)

There are exactly 5,000 undergraduates? I find that hard to believe, but I don't have time to look it up and fix it right now. Josh a brewer 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if that 5000 was accurate last year or not, but the harding website has current enrollment stats on its quick facts link under Harding info. I'm updating the figures for Fall '07. Tehpeabody 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Accomplishments[edit]

Scrap this entire section? Incorporate it into the larger athletics section where that makes sense? Nothing here seems particularly recent, nor do I deem much of it noteworthy. It stretches the word "accomplishments" quite a bit in certain passages. Major championships are accomplishments, but decent or even good attendance simply isn't encyclopedic. A team that's "66-60 through the 2008 season"? Who cares? Josh a brewer (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


HU Queer Press[edit]

A Twitter user has proposed adding a section to this page about a new student magazine called HU Queer Press and the ensuing controversy. It's a group of students and alumni sharing stories about life at Harding as LGBT in a very anti-gay environment. The school administration blocked the site and made this statement at a chapel service: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qKNze-C3uk

Thoughts on including this as a new section? Personman2 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If this were only a rogue publication that was addressed in chapel, then I'd say leave it out. However, television stations, several websites, and even national newspapers picked up on the story, I think, so it merits inclusion. Josh a brewer (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harding 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) 04:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)