Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. User:Aepoutre 12:57 June 20, 2007
Fair use rationale for Image:Mnulogo.JPG
Image:Mnulogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Leads are introductory summaries of their respective articles, which means there shouldn't be information there that isn't in the body of the article and it shouldn't need citations. Other recent issues: don't delete the comment and source about Mid-America Nazarene College vs. MidAmerica Nazarene College. That was placed as the result of an earlier edit dispute -- removing it is not only in bad taste but fairly contrary to Wikipedia's improvement policies. King of the Arverni (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
1 - It's not necessary to say "MidAmerica" in the lead. That's "common knowledge." One says "Northeastern" for Northeastern University or "Northwestern" for Northwestern University; the only confusion could be with reference to the abbreviation (NU, versus NEU or NWU, much like MNU instead of MANU).
2 - What's not common knowledge is the fact that "Mid-America Nazarene College" had a hyphen. There's been dispute between editors in the past, and the current name doesn't use the hyphen, eliminating any obvious assumptions.
3 - Leads are not "beefed up" by moving content complete with citations to the lead. See above and learn your MOS.
4 - There's no need to bold former names throughout the article. It's often referred to as "excessive".
5 - Cited information on student life was inexplicably removed.
6 - Color information was cited, and your changes did nothing to improve the article, if not serving to worsen it.
While I'd like to avoid any ad hominem assertions, it might now be fair to say that these and like edits are disruptive and destructive. Please stop. King of the Arverni (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
On the issue of Lead Sections... 1) There can be citations in a lead section. (i.e. University of Oklahoma has about 8 references, and many, many, many, many, many, more articles have refences in the lead including many Featured Articles). I doubt you will delete Oklahoma's lead section to merely The University of Oklahoma is state university in Norman, Oklahoma. Also ENC has a very nice lead, which has some of the very same information that I put into MidAmerica's lead...So be consistent. Because of not removing every reference in every university article lead, and deleting information (which is in other University's lead's) instead of helping making it better, I feel like you are singling me out. 2) On the issue of MNU's Colors...white is a tertiary color, therefore I listed it last, that switch is not that big of a deal and is not harming the article at all. For it was my editing that gave it color boxes, which is an improvement. White is used a background color. Regardless of preferrence the MNU website list them in that order. Red, Blue, and White, oh I'm sorry, Scarlet, Royal, then White. Or we could go by a third party source from the HAAC at MidAmerica or MNU, in which case it would be Royal, Scarlet and White, both proving that this is a trival issue, and that white is list last on two websites. Typically a third color means it is an accent (i.e. School colors) 3) Ok so you don't like my lead, that's fine, but fix it, and edit it, instead of deleting it. (i.e. good [sections] are 2-3 paragraphs.) 4) And use the good faith rule. So you don't like some content, and or you think it needs a source, well if I, Moonraker0022, but it on there, I can assure you that I put it on there to improve the article, whether it be SNU, OU, MNU, ENC, or other. So again, instead of deleting it automatically, use a {{Fact}} tag, for my edits are non-controversial, and non-harmful in natural. (i.e.unsourced material).
I'll use points again, to keep it clear and organized:
1 - Correct, leads can have citations, but that's not the case at hand. Material was removed from the body of the article, citations included, and moved to the lead. That makes it not a summary or an introduction, since it includes information not in the body of the article. The citation comment was just a side note to help you better understand the difference. I apologize if it was confusing.
2 - Just because some articles employ certain techniques doesn't mean they meet the highest standards of Wikipedia policy. Many editors experienced in the featured article process are aware that even those articles, especially older ones, are not perfect.
3 - No, I wouldn't advise such a change. But the edits we discuss didn't improve the lead as an introductory summary but rather removed material from the body and placed it in the lead.
4 - I'm not singling you out; I'm citing Wikipedia guidelines to an editor who, in this case, didn't appear to follow them.
5 - If merely adding information were adequate improvement then we could throw out WP:V, WP:VANDAL, WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV and a host of other guidelines. It is good when editors add information if it follow the guidelines of this encyclopedia.
6 - "For it was my editing that gave it color boxes" might sound like WP:OWN to some. We should both stay away from any personal assertions; the issue at hand is the only relevant one.
7 - The article already uses a third-party source for that content, so there's no need to propose the use of one, but I applaud the effort.
8 - I respect the "edit don't delete" rationale -- I've used it many times myself -- but every editor is held to the same standards. Similarly, an editor should make a good lead according to the definition of a lead, not add PR-like information to "beef it up" and then demand other editors fix it.
9 - MNU isn't long enough for a lead of more than 2-3 sentences. You're right, I should just make a better lead myself, just as I've worked to add most of the information and sources.
10 - Uncited information, according to policy (WP:V again), can be deleted at any time. It's on every {{unreferenced}} tag.
11 - Also according to Wikipedia policy (WP:V yet again), it's the burden of the original editor to add sources for his/her information. This is also known as "the burden of proof". Adding information and demanding that another find sources for it isn't the way it works. Each editor should be making an effort to follow WP:V.
I trust this is fairly clear, but please let me know if there's any other confusion. I truly am sorry for what may have seemed like a red herring regarding the citations in the lead. King of the Arverni (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing: the order of the colors, and its reversion, were part of an undo. You're right, it's of little consequence -- so why are you complaining about it? King of the Arverni (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Removal of uncited information is acceptable; crippling sentence structure in a vindictive mood because one feels "singled out" is not. This is especially not in good faith considering the hidden personal messages in lieu of any response on the talk page. Please stop. King of the Arverni (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how the sentence was crippled. There was still a subject and a predicate after the removal of some text.Moonraker0022 (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
c) rationale for latter image as "gender neutral" is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is the "former logo" (which is available at [5]), since it's the former logo.
Add it after it expands if it ever does. One cannot assume that it will. Granted, I still think two are unnecessary, even if it does. Pointing out that fact was only one more reason to remove it. King of the Arverni (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
notable people
How is the notable person notable? It isn't really notable. Maybe you but to someone outside of ENC, he's really not. So I suggest removal. Just because you think he is notable because he has written one book, doesn't mean that he is. Moonraker0022 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you're talking about. Be more specific. And I'll remind you that any concerns about the notability of an existing biographical article aren't relevant to this article but to that one. King of the Arverni (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
notable in the since of their contribution or 'legacy' to MNU. Snowbarger is, but not sure about your first guy. For the reason he doesn't teach there. He'd be more notable at ENCs. At any rate, there are people of greater note who have come from MNU's loins. Let's look for those, like Dr. James Dobson and his father. (since they have a building named after them), Also Vince Snowbarger's tag insufficient, he's claim to fame would not be on faculty at MNU but being a US Rep. (note how I don't just delete your edits because I don't think he is not notable, but am creating a discussion).Moonraker0022 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but if he's notable enough for an article then he's notable enough to be one of the two people mentioned here. If that's an issue, then my last sentence before is still the only real problem here. You can't claim that he's not connected; the first word in the sentence is "alumnus". Snowbarger is an alumnus, too, so he's connected, as well. That section isn't reserved for "legacies" as one might call them. Hey, and I'm really glad about the discussing! Discussing is especially important because it gives one the opportunity to develop a more NPOV and familiarize him/herself with other facts of the case. This one is a great example, because it looks as though you aren't familiar with the part of WP:UNIGUIDE that deals with a notable persons section. I'm sorry that I didn't see this before, or I would've responded earlier. King of the Arverni (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Distance from Kansas City
The 15 miles is debatable. On any given map it depends on what part of Kansas City you are going toward. Following I-35 into downtown it is a distance of 19.34 miles, but goes east, then the distance is only 10 miles. So I suggest adding back in the phrase about 20 miles from downtown Kansas City, as it has been in the past. This way people now what part of Kansas City they would be traveling to or from. My source is a map of Kansas CityMoonraker0022 (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well, I wasn't sure if this was a proposal or not, but I can say that I just reverted the 20 miles edit because the 15 miles is based on RS. Wouldn't have a problem but that one can't just change sourced information. Example: If the hypothetical New Student Encyclopedia says that all MNU student poop in the morning and one person adds "MNU students poop in the morning"<ref>New Student Encyclopedia</ref>, then someone else can't change it to "MNU students pee in the morning" and keep the New Student Encyclopedia as source -- the information no longer reflects the source. Now, if someone were to do some research, besides what I did earlier to find the RS that says 15 miles, then it might be a different story. I also removed the other uncited sentence -- normally, I would've added a {{citation needed}} in that situation because I thought it was interesting, but I didn't want to risk another overzealous edit like this. It's no big deal, I guess, since it didn't meet V anyway. King of the Arverni (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Look at the map. measure the distance between two points. You don't need a source for common information such as when you cite scripture, and a map is public domain, have you actually been to Kansas City to know how to get from MNU to downtown KC? Or that the city of Kansas City extends south making it only 10 mile from point to point. It's a map. It doesn't need a source, public domain.Moonraker0022 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1 -- The link to map above isn't RS but the same thing I'd see if I visited http://maps.google.com. I express concerns the significance of that 5-mile difference in the face of RS.
2 -- "Citing scripture," as in John 14:6? I'd like to see where WP:V mentions exceptions for "scripture" and/or "common knowledge."
3 -- One's own knowledge/POV does not account for others, hence WP:V and WP:NPOV, not "common knowledge."
4 -- It doesn't matter if an editor has been to Kansas City. Comments reveal strong non-NPOV. Again, I challenge the significance of that 5-mile difference in the face of RS.
5 -- "Public domain" is not the same as "common knowledge".
6 -- It must be shown here that distance/maps are exempt from WP:V to support previous statements.
7 -- Editor's recent edit summary was disingenuous, since it changed the distance (the subject of this dispute) but referred to the architecture. The edit to which it summary did refer was also improper because the claim wasn't cited; even if the source was "already up there" somewhere, it wasn't used a citation for the claim.
It is not misleading to say that it is about 20 miles from downtown Kansas City. I am making the statement more accurate. Also if you write any academic paper public domain things like the Bible do not need to be referenced in your citation page. Dude, just zoom in on Kansas City, it's flash so the site doesn't work like that. Also, you are getting your information from a "find out about your college" type site which heavily takes it's information from the MNU site, if not Wikipedia it's self. I ask you which I have said before, does every statement need a a reference? No. The coronations of MNU are given already. Moonraker0022 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)http://www.mnu.edu/about/introduction.php
These statement are incorrect. Do not intentionally misrepresent the facts.
Look, I gave points on the talk page, I even gave sources from MNU, and a MAP. Stop reverting all my edits, and calling me a vandal. We need to get into some WP:DRMoonraker0022 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've asked another editor to take a look. Your edits were not sufficient. 19 (the new source) is not 20 (your claim) and 15 comes from an independent, reliable, third-party source, an encyclopedia. If you'd read WP:V any of the times I offered you the link, you'd know the difference. --King of the Arverni (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is about. We have two sources (I am not including Google Maps; that seems too much like WP:SYN and WP:OR to me) that are only 1 mile off. Personally, I'd go with the institution's information as it seems a bit more specific than the Britannica source. Without having any knowledge of these two sources, I would also initially place a bit more trust in the institution's website than a "student enyclopedia" written by authors unknown. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
First: I agree with the map bit. I disagree with the Encyclopedia Britannica bit, since I'd consider that a more independent and reliable WP:SOURCE (it is third party per that guideline). Does that encyclopedia not have a "reputation for fact-checking?" I believe I sent you a link, Kev, that shows it's at least for students not by students or anything, in case that was a concern, and commented that it made sense that there would be an MNU article there instead of the regular encyclopedia. I also just noticed -- that 1 mile bit is wrong: Moonraker says 20, while his/her source says 19, and the encyclopedia says 15. Technically it's a 5-mile difference between the two sources and a 1 mile difference between the source and Moonraker's edit.
Second: All that said, it's occurred to me that Moonraker's "let's do both" idea would apply marvelously to this! I propose a sentence like:
The 110-[[acre]] (45 [[hectare]]) [[campus]] is located in [[Olathe, Kansas]], about 15-20 miles from [[Kansas City]], [[Missouri]].<ref name="brit"/><ref>[http://www.mnu.edu/about/introduction.php distance from Kansas City]</ref>
That would use both sources, establish the "squishy" (my word) distance that Moonraker refers to (depending on the approach apparently, although I prefer as the crow flies, which is probably what the Encyclopedia Britannica uses), and -- most importantly -- not use one source that says 15 miles while allowing the content to say 20, or another source that says 19 while still allowing the content to say 20. I still strongly adhere to WP:V in all cases; if it says 19 then it must be 19, unless we're actually establishing a range based upon two conflicting sources like I'm proposing here. I really like this idea, so I'd love to hear Moonraker's thoughts on it, as well as others'. I'm so glad that we took some time to cool off and think about more creative options! King of the Arverni (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
File:20mile.jpg20 milesFile:15mile.jpg15 milesWe want this Wikipedia page to be as accurate as possible right? Compare the two images.(The milage is in the upper right courner). Stopping at 20 miles takes you into downtown Kansas City. Stopping at 15 miles you don't even make it into Missouri, you barely make it across the Johnson County border with Wyandotte County. I'd be ok with a 15-20 mile statement, but my hang-up is you are still in Kansas Dorothy. Kansas City's Downtown is not 5 miles wide, so a more accurate range is needed. Maybe try 18-21 miles, cuz at 18 you've at least crossed the border. Yes, you can be in Kansas City at 15 miles, but you are not downtown, in fact MNU is only about 8 miles from the south part of Kansas City (take 135st/HWY150), but that is not downtown (and even further from the Kansas City International Airport). And I'm confused to why we will use the image from the institutional website claiming to the be most reliable, but yet third party site milage site is more reliable than the institutional website milage? Would not the institutional website be reliable for both? As far as 19 and 20 go... 19 is an exact measurement, and the word about was to suppose to give some leeway, as to make it an approximate of 20 (a nice even number) miles. But again, look at the maps, 15 miles gets you to about the KU Med Center, 20 miles and you are right at an exit to Union Station or Bartle Hall. Given I am a member of the Kansas City Project, and I do know about this town. Moonraker0022 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The images are screen shots taken from entrying the MNU address, 2030 E College Way, Olathe Kansas 66062, and Kansas City, MO into the get directions tab. I had to use a screen shot since my attempts at linking google maps up didn't work. Another method one could use is cacluating the straight line distance between the latitude and longitude of MNNU and any point with in the Downtown loop of Kansas City. Most easily done using Google Earth. The number I received was 18.63 College Way to Barney Allis Plaza inside the (Downtown Loop). They are purely a visual aide to show where you'll end up. Also it may be WP:OWN, but a map is a map and they will be the same tool used in Maine or in LA on the internet or in physical form. So I do think maps can be a reliable source, especially in the GPS age. Moonraker0022 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Answer to "We want this Wikipedia page to be as accurate as possible right?" is not necessarily. Let's get a broader consensus here, since I've cited this guideline more times than I'd like to count. King of the Arverni (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
As the crow flies in Google Earth is ~18.3 miles (29.5 km). 15mi seems to be a significant outlier even if it is from an otherwise reliable source. I don't think that the usual red flags we need concern ourselves with WP:SPS apply to geographic proximity as I see no reason for the self-published source to inflate or otherwise distort this information. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, 15 miles could mean Kansas City metropolitan area, Kansas City, Kansas, or simply the Kansas City city line. If I were measuring to Kansas city and didn't necessarily mean downtown, I could probably measure from the edge of campus to the city line and arrive at 15. Since it's definitely less than 20, and could be as little as 15 if measuring that way, and we have two reliable sources that offer both, it's my opinion that the current compromise should serve quite well. Initially, this disagreement arose from a complete lack of WP:V, and then other issues joined the fray. While I'm still wary of WP:OR, I'll check out the city line and KCK stuff on Google Earth, which shows city boundaries. King of the Arverni (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the 15 could be either the KCK or KC city lines, since they seem to converge at that point. We can specify further if necessary, but unless we do so then 15-20 should be all-encompassing. King of the Arverni (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If Downtown is taken out then the range should be larger sine MNU is only 8 miles away from Kansas City, MO as the crow flies East. So either up expand the range or re-add the word Downtown Kansas City.Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Also the source in question stating 15 links to a page titled Mid-America Nazarene College, using the wrong name. The fact that name is wrong says to me that it is not as reliable as maps or the MNU site itself. Furthermore, I'm uncomfortable to how closely the whole Student Life paragraph seems to be almost word-word from the Britannica MANC ref.Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
MNU was once MANC. It's not "wrong" it's just old; there's a difference. As for the wording: it's close but not verbatim. Rewrite it if you don't like itRewrite it if necessary, just stick to the verifiable content. King of the Arverni (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just read over the encyclopedia reference and the student life section. It's not word for word, although it uses much of the same specific content -- numbers, percentages, factual references -- as one might expect when citing something. If the concern is plagiarism, that's easily averted by the footnote and citation. It's certainly not a cut & paste. King of the Arverni (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I also did this because it wasn't discussed here (I've tried making proposals per WP:TALK) and, more importantly, the sources used still say 15 and 19, not 18 or 20. I could go with 15-20 using sources that say 15 and 19, but it looks like you're just pushing your POV when you make undiscussed edits without summaries like that, especially when you leave the source and just change the information. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I love the new edit. Agreed. I'd really suggest working on the attitude, though. In light of all that's gone on here, I don't think I'd hesitate to make an issue of it if it continues to be a problem in the future. Take care! King of the Arverni (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Murder
The article should mention that the president of the student body and the dean of students killed a MidAmerica Nazarene University secretary's husband.[6][7][8] It was huge story. Agg56tt (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought about it, but I wasn't sure if it'd cause another huge uproar, like those above. I also noticed that none of the parties have Wikipedia articles of their own, so I wasn't sure if it was notable enough. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is what I'd originally written:
In 2006, alumnus and former student body president [[Mark Mangelsdorf]] was convicted of the 1982 murder of the husband of his former lover and MANC secretary, [[Melinda Raisch]], who was also convicted in 2005.<ref>Associated Press, "Man, former lover sentenced to 10 to 20 years for 1982 murder", Topeka Capital Journal, 13 May 2006.</ref>
They just attended MNU, it would be notable on the MNU article had MNU told them to commit it... but it would be better if the incident had it's own page 1982 Olathe Murder, or something like that, instead of those details of the crime, which don't pertain to MNU directly, would be there. The only connection is that they are MNU students. those are my 2 cents.Moonraker0022 (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
or add that indented quote section you've highlighted in the notable people section, but again, just a sentence, the MNU article is not the place for a full crime detail thing.Moonraker0022 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It's notable for inclusion because many, many press articles discuss the school in the context of the murder. There is no reason for this wiki article to omit things that have been discussed in the press. Especially, when one considers the proposal is ONE sentence.
As for your objections. They didn't "just attend the school." Two were employees, another was a student, and the murder happened because of the religious upbringing/ community (She didn't want a divorce per her religion, so murder in her mind was a better option). Secondly, no one here is suggesting a full detail of the crime. Anyone interested in that could look at the sources.
In sum, I'm in favor of adding the one sentence proposal in the history section (it happened in the 1980s). Agg56tt (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on MidAmerica Nazarene 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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
For the general public the school's principal claim to fame is that it's a basketball powerhouse. It even is mentioned on official signs on the interstate. Its remarkable title and Final Run is sanitized way too much in this edit. Americasroof (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on MidAmerica Nazarene 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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
