Talk:Oklahoma Christian University

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

My revert[edit]

Fine. Here are some very compelling reasons why the edits I made should be left off for now. (1) The motto, “They will soar on wings like eagles.” I don’t know if that’s the motto or not. I just think it is. That’s not good enough for an encyclopedia. So it has to go. (2) The school grew under James O. Baird. I don’t have any sources to verify that. It’s simply second-hand information. (3) The baseball team. Again, this is second-hand information (as far as I know, it was “inside” information for a while, don’t know about its current status), and I have no sources to verify this claim. Okay, I think that covers everything. Do not add my edits back to the article. Cowardcoward 06:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Responses: 1) Motto is being confirmed via email by me 2) the statement the school grew under Baird is verified by the fact that it moved in 1959 to a LARGER campus, since that was during his tenure as president. 3) if thats the case the baseball team data will be removed.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 06:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Motto found on website as "transform lives for faith, leadership and service" now changed.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing and reverting this page[edit]

      ***SCANDAL AT OC***
      2012 SCANDAL AT OC
   Don't send your kids to a crooked school that only claims Christ.

You don't just go around reverting entire articles. Take out the stuff you think is vandalism and leave the rest.

Umm. Yes, Mr. OU Anonymous. I do go around reverting extensive vandalism. Adding one useful fact to a flood of vandalism does not immunize your edits from revert. Danlovejoy 01:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"OU"? Huh. Nice try on being Mr. Investigator. Now it wasn't too hard to figure out you're a far right-winger who cruises the Internet and Wikipedia looking for ways to spread ultraconservative propaganda and attempting to erase comments from the most random of pages that you deem offensive to a close-minded and puritan mindset. After all, we wouldn’t want anything bad said about Christians, even if it’s true.

I guess I could make anonymous edits and hide my edit trail, but I don't think that's ethical. I'm puzzled by your accusation (far right winger?!) but that's neither here nor there.
I do not dispute the neutrality of the article at present, Mr. Anonymous. Do you? Danlovejoy 16:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The vandal is from OU. I apologize for assuming you were the vandal. Danlovejoy 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article may have to become disputed again, as it seems a sole employee of OC has reverted not just all of the edits by students from IP addresses, but some legitimate edits as well.

I could very easily log in under a psuedonym, or like you, not log in at all. Rather, I make my edits under my real name. I stand by my edits and invite readers to assess them on the merits. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The Wheaton and Pepperdine comments were well within the realm of appropriate.

They may not be vandalism, but they are are inaccurate. There is no attempt to emulate these universities. Look at the documents I referenced. You could say that the OC Covenant is reminiscent of Wheaton's but there's no official or unoffical policy to emulate them. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked at one of the vandals' blogs, DarkEyed (, and apparently, this very kind of behavior by members of the OC administration is the cause of some frustration.

What behavior? The current administration is far and away the most open and engaged of any administration in the history of the institution. Even if it were not, does this justify vandalism? Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the OC employee has violated several unofficial rules - like being the only person or couple of people to edit an entry,

I can't be "a couple of people" and I can't help who does or does not edit this page. As far as I know Ichabod also works on this page quite a bit. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

reverting several times a day rather than once a day,

You're referring to the 3RR. I suggest you read it. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

having a conflict of interest as an employee where he makes the edits, etc.

I can be considered an expert on the university, and I have added not one word of POV. I stand by my edit history and would encourage readers to monitor me in this. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And apparently, he is too much into this stuff. On his blog, he complains about how "evil" some people on the Internet are, and he prides himself on his Wiki user page for reverting vandalism on several pages.

I don't see how this is relevant. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There are some fairly strange Wikipedia articles that he has gone to and voted to delete, which makes me wonder if he just patrols Wikipedia looking for speech contrary to his morals.

Please give examples. Do you suppose this page violates my morals, or perhaps this one? Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for carrying out personal crusades of morality.

Absolutely, so point out a single instance where I've done this. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

He also blanket reverts a lot of vandalism without checking to see if some of the comments are useful (some of them are), which is another violation of some of the more unofficial rules of editing at Wikipedia.

Which rule? Nope - putting in a fact or two does not immunize your edits from revert if they are vandalism. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

He's also apparently warned numerous people to quit vandalizing the OC page, some of whom never even vandalized the page

No, one person. And I apologized. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

yet at the same time he calls on others to assume "good faith" while simultaneously assuming bad faith on the part of others who had done nothing to merit such animosity.

Please look at my admonitions to vandals and tell me I'm not assuming Good Faith. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In one instance, he actually asked other users to go to the user page of an individual and all tell that person to quit vanalizing solely for the purpose of expiditing the mechanical rules for banishing someone.

If this kind of abusive behavior doesn't discontinue, someone might need a timeout. His job specifically involves marketing OC on the web - and while there's nothing wrong with that - Wikipedia isn't the place for it. 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the dispute resolution process and submit my behavior for evaluation by other editors and administrators. Danlovejoy 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added a section in the policy section that discusses OC's policy on homosexual students. The policy is ambiguous, and I have stated as much. I have also compared this policy to both oklahoma non-discrimination laws as well as non-discrimination laws. I have written factual information and provided links to support the information contained within the edit. As such it is innapropriate for the information to be editted out. I does make OC seem backwards compared to the social movements of most of the country, but just because this may reflect poorly on the university in the eyes of some observers does not give grounds for the removal of this FACTUAL, SUPPORTED information from the article.

I would ask that furthur edits to this material be either to correct grammer or to clarify the OC's position (with offical documentaion of such).


What is POV about the article? How should we move forward to remove the POV tag? Danlovejoy 16:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


No way am I reading between the lines to find all of your comments again. I’m not about to spend an hour trying to respond between the lines like that, regardless of how many rules I might be breaking by responding like this instead. As a result, none of my paragraphs below flow together coherently. Each is just a response to each of your individual responses.

Let’s see, the Covenant is borrowed from Wheaton. Mike O’Neal is borrowed from Pepperdine. The Diversity Summit from a couple years ago along with the speaker, borrowed from Pepperdine. The SGA passing a resolution regarding government spending towards AIDS in Africa, borrowed from Wheaton. Ken Starr and Art Linkletter speaking at OC, borrowed from Pepperdine. Graduating from OC and not being able to disassociate yourself from the “cool” high school mentality of the campus and sticking around to work in the Student Life office and possibly date a student, that’s borrowed from Pepperdine. Now, appointing an ombudsman after a string of controversies – the biggest of which involved the guy to later be appointed as ombudsman – that’s not copying Pepperdine or Wheaton. That’s just transparent bad faith – which seems to be the de facto policy of OC’s administration.

I reread my comments. Nowhere did I say vandalism was justified. The administration does provoke vandalism from students (since it appears all the vandals are students) my suppressing thought at every turn. Everything OC does is the loud trumpet of its own clique to the disadvantage of its marginalized student body. Check the OC website. Several student blogs are listed, and all from the established group. Meanwhile, the blogs from the marginalized students have to be quite a headache for the administration. All that free speech out there could send the wrong message. Of course, the administration and the clique of students that are in tune with the administration consider that speech to be “hateful” rather than overblown comments that might at their core of some element of truth.

Yeah, you and Ichabod would count as a person or a couple of people. Rather than admitting the obvious, you’d like to ignore the merits of the argument and pay attention to a pointless grammatical detail. Since I know you’re not a complete idiot, I know you understand what I was actually saying and that your comments were in bad faith, a recurring theme for you. And, yes, I understand you can’t control who edits the entry. That doesn’t change anything. If not enough people are editing this entry, then perhaps it needs to be deleted until OC becomes a relevant topic worth an encyclopedic entry.

Wrong. I was referring to the disputed/unofficial policy on not feeding the trolls. Save your sarcasm for someone else.

I contacted several OC alumni, all of whom are in or have completed graduate (including medical or law) school. All agreed that your edits are POV. And I suppose you could be considered an expert on the university, just like I could be considered an expert on yo mama. But I’m not writing an article about her am I? (No, Dan, I’m not really an expert on yo mama. Wipe the sweat of your brow, and stop looking for the tag for personal attacks. I’m just making a point.)

I love the irony. Your inability to “see” the relevance of evidence is the very essence of bias.

Let’s see, there’s a vote for deletion on “Crap Os”. You seemed quite zealous in your efforts to remove “vodka and coke.” There were also some others you voted to delete, including a page dedicated to some strange use of the word “boner.” In any event, your argument here has at least three problems. First, pages that have been deleted are removed from your list of contributions, thus destroying the evidence. Second, I never said all of your votes to delete stemmed from morality issues, so your attempt to satirize my argument is useless and pathetic. Thirdly, I shouldn’t have to inform you of the pages you have deleted on moral grounds. If I do need to inform you of your own edits, then (a), you probably aren’t smart enough to be editing encyclopedic information, or (b) you have resorted to yet another bad faith tactic.

If you could explain this undue disdain for the spirit of editing at Wikipedia, it would be helpful. Any time there is a suggested method of handling problems or a guideline that is not an explicit Wikipedia policy, to this point you have chosen to completely ignore it. What makes the OC article better - completely deleting all comments from a vandal or retaining any information the vandalism might have contained that would be appropriate?

I have looked. You are not assuming good faith. Reporting someone who hasn’t vandalized can in no way be construed as good faith.

I suggest you look at this blog: Looks like another OC student is speaking poorly of OC on the web. Better revert his blog.

As a final note, you should also consider whether Wikipedia is intended to be elitist. I seriously doubt that it is. I make edits on Wikipedia from time to time from numerous IP addresses depending on where I am at. Most of this edits have only been a sentence or two though I have written over a dozen articles. I don’t want to be a user or an administrator or anything else on Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia for very basic research or for learning some trivia when I can, and I make edits whenever I see a place where I can add something. To this point, I have been able to make all of these edits without anyone worrying about the nuisances regarding the rules and my edits. Users like you attempting to browbeat others with the rulebook discourage others from using Wikipedia and from making legitimate edits.

First of all - let's get this out of the way, anonymous. Are you an anonymous sockpuppet of DarkEyed? Because there's no reference to her blog anywhere but here on Wikipedia, but you seem to know where it is. Or are you in some sort of collaboration with her to vandalize the page?
I am not going to respond again point by point here, but I'll let other Wikipedians decide for themselves the merits of your arguments. Outside of reverts to blatant vandalism, I have made very few edits to the OC article. The latest, removing "widely panned" from the covenant and a specific comment that OC is trying to emulate Wheaton and Pepperdine are the only ones you actually seem to have a problem with. Perhaps we should revisit the wording on those and come up with some consensus text. I DO stand by my edits and ask others to look at my history for themselves. Furthermore, if there is a vast groundswell of discontent from alumni with this article as it is, I suggest someone edit it, rather than vandalize it.
You are obviously very intelligent and a good writer. If you think there are problems with the article, go ahead and make changes to it. Danlovejoy 16:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn’t respond because there was nothing to respond to. I made several arguments that went without refutation. You attempted to refute a few arguments, but I was able to counter those attempts. You let nearly all your arguments get hammered without any defense of them. I exposed several serious problems in your credibility, which you conveniently ignored.
You just started your next response by basically accusing me of being a “sockpuppet” of DarkEyed. (And for reasons I won’t get in to, I can tell you that DarkEyed (Xanga) and DarkEyed (Wikipedian) are not the same person.) As I’ve tried to explain to you already with limited success, I’ve created a few articles and updated a few articles in a proper manner. But I mainly use Wikipedia to learn some trivia or look up very basic information. I don’t know what sockpuppets are or how to mask IP addresses or of that other kind of stuff. If baseless accusations are all you have left, there’s no reason for me to respond.
I did notice a couple of responses from outside individuals though. Pay particular attention to the line by IronDuke, “It reads a bit too much like a brochure.” Isn’t that the whole point of the NPOV dispute? The article is being written almost exclusively by the guy whose job (perhaps among other things) is to market OC on the web. Basically, you’ve written a promotional guided-tour version of OC.
And as a side note tangential to the Wikipedia discussion, your editing and behavior here on indicative of why OC may not be around in 50 years. OC can continue down this path of intellectual dishonesty, ignoring a past of racial tension, financial struggles, athletic and administrative ethical lapses, etc. The bureaucracy and tuition can continue to grow, peripheral students can continue to be ignored, and expression can crushed. But let me suggest to you that this is a plan for a university’s self-destruction.
The saddest part is that most people at OC involved in the decision-making have good intentions. Unfortunately, whether a bad idea is the child of good intentions or bad intentions, it’s still a bad idea. Good intentions – it has been said – pave the road to hell.
OC can learn from the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Challenger explosion, and the ill-fated invasion of Iraq. A lot of plans throughout history started with good intentions, but without any critical analysis or outside thought, those good intentions led to disastrous results. I can’t keep you from aiding in the destruction of OC, but I can ask you not to do it on Wikipedia. 19:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous - please. The young lady is a different lady with the same psuedonym? She writes derisively about this discussion on her eponymous blog? But she's a different person? The coincidence, it boggles the mind, really. If you want to cover for her, just remove the reference to her blog. Nobody cares.
And the Bay of Pigs? That's your historical lesson. More air support?
I'm not responding to you point by point because I just don't get it. Why attack me? It's pointless to attack me like this, and it's pointlesss for me to go on tit-for-tatting you. I don't have any more power here than you. Make your changes, support them, and everyone gets behind you, if you're right. If you have a problem with the article, change it, or make an RFC. If you have a problem with my behavior, make an RFC. If you want to write about any given topic, do it! Just leave me out of it, please.
Finally, once again, I fully stand by my edits, even my paltry ones to this article. I'd ask anyone who reads this discussion to please look at my edit history and judge for yourself. I have written less than 5% of this article. I have added a couple of facts and made a few text edits. Look at the history and judge for yourselves. While you're at it, look at the rest of my history and decide if I'm a right wing nutjob intent on imposing my morals on Wikipedia. I did, after all, vote to merge Vodka and Coke with Cocktails.
So far, all you seem interested in is attacking me. You obviously have an ax to grind, and I'm not interested in being your whetstone. So, this will be my last response to you.
But I do wish you well - really, the very best! I hope you will redirect your energies into something more useful, something constructive. It's very easy to anonymously critcize, to tear down, to carp, to gossip, to whine, and to feel superior because you're part of the cynical minority. It's very hard to actually stand up and do something about the problems in this world. If you have a problem with OC, you can make an appointment with the head man just about any day of the week. His email address is all over the web site. He'll answer your email in about 30 minutes, in my experience. Go forth and do something. Make a difference. (And leave me out of it. ;-) ) Danlovejoy 04:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I would say the POV tag should be removed (and frankly, I'm having trouble figuring out why this is a huge issue), but I would add a tag indicating that the article still needs a lot of work. Much of the prose is wooden, and it reads a bit too much like a brochure. "Resurrecting the basketball team?" Hmmmm. As a thought experiment, maybe editors could ask themselves, "What would this entry look like in a paper encyclopedia?" IronDuke 02:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also confused as to the merit of the NPOV tag. I'm sure there are some edits that can be made to improve the tone of the article but I don't see any serious content dispute here. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

New edit[edit]

Okay, I cleaned some stuff up, and added a little sourced bit at the end about Christianity and evolution(and fixed an error that I myself inserted). IronDuke 05:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to say that the full-time, tenure-tracked faculty are required to be members of the church of Christ. Saying that they are required to be Christian might be NPOV and a little misleading to people who aren't members of the churches of Christ. 03:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Made the change. IronDuke 20:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing content on November 24, 2005[edit]

I have now twice reverted edits made to this article, since they seem to be unencyclopaedic, and they fail to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Content such as " It's really a suck ass policy" and "men caught entering into the women's dorms are often tortured by OC security" lead me to believe that this information if also factually incorrect. Entering such sensational information would require a reference to be cited, at least, and without such it could be construed as vandalism. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources[edit]

Please cite your source for "OC ranks poorly compared to other colleges in the state in these categories."

I checked the Daily Oklahoman back through 1983:

  • "Officials at Oklahoma Christian University have announced the establishment of the Joe McCormack Endowment for International Studies. University officials said the endowment will fund the McCormack Scholars Program and the McCormack Lectures. The scholarship program will award money annually to international students. It also will provide scholarships to students participating in the university's official international study programs with preference given to minority students." — The Daily Oklahoman, November 15, 2005
  • "The percent, by school, of first-time, full-time students who began at four-year institutions in 1997 and graduated within six years: ...
Oklahoma Christian University, Edmond 31.1% ...
Overall average of the 27 institutions 36.8%" — The Daily Oklahoman, July 24, 2005
  • The U.S. News survey [U.S. News and World Report annual survey] also ranked colleges based on regions of the country, and Oklahoma schools fall into the western division. In that division, Oklahoma Baptist University rated second and Oklahoma Christian University ranked seventh among comprehensive colleges offering bachelor's degrees. — The Daily Oklahoman, August 24, 2003
  • For the fifth year in a row, Oklahoma Christian University has been ranked in the Top 10 on a list of best colleges in a 16-state region. Oklahoma Christian was ranked No. 7 on a list of best comprehensive colleges in the Western region by U.S. News & World Report. The groupings were released online late Thursday and will be published Sept. 1 in the magazine's 2004 best college rankings. —The Daily Oklahoman, August 22, 2003
  • "He [Michael O'Neal] has initiated a diversity committee and is attempting to make sure that Oklahoma Christian offers Christian education to all people. He hosted a one-day diversity conference in January attended by about 50 people, many of them members of black Churches of Christ and Hispanic Churches of Christ. O'Neal sought their ideas on how the school can better recruit young people to attend their churches. This is a particularly key issue for O'Neal. 'Our institutions have not done as good a job at serving minority communities,' he said." —The Daily Oklahoman, July 5, 2003
  • Oklahoma Baptist University and Oklahoma Christian University were ranked among the top 10 liberal arts universities in the West in the U.S. News College Guide. ... The magazine [U.S. News & World Report] bases its rankings on academic reputation, graduation and retention rates, faculty resources, financial resources, class sizes and alumni donations. This marks the ninth consecutive year for Oklahoma Baptist to be listed in the regional top 10. It is the second time for Oklahoma Christian. —The Daily Oklahoman, September 2, 2000 22:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the latest US News ranking:

  • "One Oklahoma school got a No. 1 spot among the lists of best colleges ranked by U.S. News & World Report. ... Several Oklahoma privates scored well on that list, with Oklahoma Baptist University ranking second (behind Oregon's Linfield College), Oklahoma Christian University ranking 7th and Oklahoma Wesleyan University ranking 13th." — The Daily Oklahoman, August 20, 2005. 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

All of the above looks legit- why not put a summary of it in? Sethie 01:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh. A collision with the facts. Never good for one whose mind is already made up. ;-) Here are some more links that might be useful (consider the source)
Google search on domain for "retention."
A little info on diversity:
There's LOTS and lots more out there. I probably need to organize it better. But it's certainly Googleable.
Minority retention is certainly below goals, partly because the administration implemented an aggressive scholarship program for under-served students without fully understanding their needs. We have seen improvements there as well as we have done a better job at recruiting. I don't know if those numbers are available, but I'll try to get them.
Thanks to all of you who are working on this article. Danlovejoy 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


[in order of the sources you listed] Your first source upholds the part of the paragraph saying that efforts are being made. The second source upholds the controversial paragraph. 31.1% is terrible. The US News and Reports ranking of OC are not the ranking of its graduation, retention, or transfer rates, though they may play some limited role in determining that overall ranking. So again, this source does not change the merits of the statement that OC ranks poorly in retaining and graduating students. Then your next statement about O’Neal’s efforts again just confirms the first part of the paragraph in question. Then we have yet another US News and World Report quote which is completely dubious. Graduation and retention rates are only a small part of the ranking, and the category that OC is in does not include all the schools in Oklahoma. It doesn’t include OU, OSU, Southeastern, and several other schools. So don’t pretend like that source in any way negates the paragraph in question. And then the last source is so vague it can be in no way construed as having any real connection to the Wikipedia paragraph. So thanks for wasting everyone’s time by pretending like the paragraph is not accurate.

Rather than meddling in crap you clearly don’t know about – just move on. You’re just causing trouble. The churches of Christ do not traditionally capitalize “church”. Knock if off!

As for Dan, well, he’s spreading his ridiculous nonsense on here as usual. Look at this weak crap. A link from a blogger, which again, does not compare OC retention, transfer, and graduation rates to other schools – it only compares OC’s current rates to its past rates. Blah, blah, blah – the usual Dan crap.

The real deal: (this is not a comprehensive list, and it doesn’t match up all the schools by year, but I think you get the general idea)

OC (74% retention, 31.1% graduation) OBU (80% retention, 47% graduation) OSU (+80% retention, +55% graduation) OU (83% graduation, 47.4% graduation)

In-state average (graduation 51.6%) 05:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the vitriol? "OC ranks poorly compared to other colleges in the state in these categories," is POV unless you provide a source for the statement. An NPOV statement would say something like; "For the 2004/2005 school year, Oklahoma Christian University had a graduation rate of 31.1% compared to the state average of 36.8%". You would still need to provide a source for the statement and even the facts can be POV when taken out of context. To show context you would also have to say something like; "The higestet ranked public institution in the state is Oklahoma State University with a graduation rate of 58.3% with the highest private institution being Metropolitan College in Oklahoma City at 70.6%. The lowest ranked, respectively, are Oklahoma Panhandle State University with 5.0% and Bacone College with 12.5%." And even this is POV unless you balance these statements with something like; "In the 2005 U.S. News & World Report's College Guide, Oklahoma Christion University, ranked seventh in the Western district. U.S. News bases its rankings on academic reputation, graduation and retention rates, faculty resources, financial resources, class sizes and alumni donations. OC has ranked consistently in the top 10 during the last ?? years." As for the capitaization of "Churches of Christ", that style agrees with the main article and also with proper English. I found this article on a random page hunt, and, even though I have absolutely no interest in religious schools, I could see that someone was coming close to a whack job on this one. Just take a look at the page history 21:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, OC ranks poorly compared to other colleges in those categories, when backed up with statstics, is very POV. I think something should be done to try to eliminate the "reality POV" on Wikipedia. I think this comment would be a lot better: "Despite graduating less than one-third of their students, OC has very good retention rates...FOR ME TO POOP ON!" My unofficial vote is for deletion. Oh, and I also want to officially give a thumbs up to Alkivair, the free speech Nazi. If I were him, I wouldn't put my mug up on my user page. I wouldn't want people all over the world to know what an adult-sized titty-baby looks like. Beisnj 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Contact info[edit]

AFAIK Wikipedia does not usually have contact information for organizations (website links aside). Rd232 talk 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Lovejoy is Wrong[edit]

I think that the user who is arguing with Dan is correct. I've been keeping an eye on the situation with the Oklahoma Christian page and I can't say that Dan is making any sense at all. Most of his arguments actually support the idea that OC has worse numbers than other schools in the state. The US News and World Report - a favorite of the OC administration - is not a valid source for this discussion since, as was previously pointed out, it does not rank institutions specific to this discussion. The comment made was that OC ranks poorly with respect to other institutions in the state. None of what Dan has said negates that. As a matter of fact, his own citation of OC's 31.1% retention rate compared to the 37% for the other schools in the state upholds the claim in the article. I truly can't figure out what Lovejoy's point is. OC lacks in some areas - can that not be a part of this encylopedic entry, or are we to assume that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is only a forum for positive review? The facts here have not been contested. The facts need to be allowed since they are, in fact, factual.

Additionally, Dan, your demeanor and tone needs a serious adjustment. You come across poorly. You seem snide, rude, and condescending in your posts. I suggest that you find a way to approach these discussions in a more polite, Christian manner. Moreover, I understand that your paid position at Oklahoma Christian University is to direct all internet advertising and marketing, but that does not give you the right to delete all negative input from Wikipedia. If someone did that on the OC webpage, which you maintain, you would have every right to do that. However, wikipedia is not YOUR property. It is OUR property. If we feel that something significant should be added to the page and it is factual, you need to come up with a valid reason for deleting it. Yes, your job is to produce a positive image of OC on the internet. However, Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement.

Finally, I'd like to say that I also feel like this page should be removed from Wikipedia in its entirety. This has turned into more of a hassle for the Wikipedia community than it is worth. It is obvious that at this point, vandals are posting on here for the specific reason of irritating Dan and Ichabod. As immature as that may be, it is obviously what is happening. They haven't stopped in about 4 weeks and I see no end in sight. OC hasn't made it in any other encyclopedia that I am aware of. Why not delete the page? It is poorly written and contains little useful information to start with. The OC page has turned into a joke. Let's stop giving the vandals the satisfaction of irritating the community. Let's ALSO stop giving Dan a platform to push propaganda. His eternally positive endorsement of the school is 100% as biased as the negative junk posted by the vandals.

In conclusion, I am all for deleting the page in its entirety. If it is not going to be deleted, I feel that the negative comment regarding retention rates MUST be allowed. It is factual (even by Dan's inadvertant admission) and every bit as pertainent to a potential student as knowing who donated the land for the school. It must stand.

Please look at my edit history[edit]

First of all Wikipedia policy is to capitalize "Church of Christ." See the talk page on Church of Christ for more info on that.

I am distressed that *I* have become an issue on this page, therefore I have not recently edited the main page. I did provide some links and information on the Talk page. Surely no one can have a problem with that.

I'd ask everyone, especially real Wikipedians who are reading this page to please look at my edit history and judge for yourselves about my edits on this page, and to the Wikipedia as a whole. The irrefutable fact is that I've made VERY few edits to this page, outside of reverts to overt vandalism. Other than that, I have made ONE possibly controversial edit which has never been challenged on the merits. I even offered to work out compromise language on that ONE edit. Nobody responded with compromise language, RfC, or any of the standard Wikipedia methods for resolving conflicts. All I got back was more personal attacks and bile.

Nevertheless, I'm accused of "WikiMarketing," "deleting everything negative" about OC and "Advertising" on the page. I have done none of these things. The facts speak for themselves.

I see nothing wrong with adding info to the Talk page and providing links. It is up to the editors of the page to take them or leave them. Please cease these unfair and completely spurious attacks. Danlovejoy 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the nomination to delete this page. We're talking about a very minor school, and the entire page has really just become a place to serve as a forum for OC employees and students to fight it out over vandalizing the page (students) and POV-ing the page (employees). It's completely pathetic, and again, I must place more blame on the employees. I would expect this from students, but from school administrators? It's just sad. At least the students are open about their POV in their vandalism. The employees try to conceal their bias, which is much worse. They try to deceive people just like the Bush administration - by pretending that falsehoods are facts. The worse offender has to be danlovejoy, who seems to have deliberately circumvented the spirit of Wikipedia with the intent of working the vandals into a frenzy. Whatever happened to the Wikipedia stance of "not feeding the vandals"? 22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Where? How? Point to an example in my edit history. Enough with this unsupported, anonymous assertions. Danlovejoy 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Dan is apparently unaware of his own actions, let me remind him. By my unofficial count, Dan has edited the OC page 20 times. At least 10 of his edits were efforts to revert vandalism. At least 3 times, Dan has edited the page in succession.

To do what? Update enrollment figures? Is there something nefarious about editing the page more than one time in a sitting? Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like on about 12 occasions he has warned people about vandalizing the OC page, threatened people with punishment

I don't have the authority or the capability to punish anyone. I have used the Wikipedia templates for warning vandals, following Wikipedia spirit and policy. Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

for editing the OC page, or asked others to punish people vandalizing the OC page.

I did ask one user to warn a vandal. There's no "punishment" involved. This is also consistent with Wikipedia policy. Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

He has falsely accused at least two people of being vandals,

One person by my count, and I did apologize. Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

and he has removed other people’s comments from talk pages regarding OC edits (a no-no at Wikipedia).

You're talking about yet another anonymous personal attack you added about something completely irrelevant to the Wikipedia on MY Talk page. When I informed you that I was going to ignore you here, you decided to attack me on my talk page. I don't have to put up with this stuff on MY OWN TALK page.
And if it is wrong, why are you doing it yourself? (And adding personal insults, to boot) Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

He also falsely claimed that OC’s retention rates being poor compared to those of the state at large were someone’s biases in collision with the facts. Oh, how I love irony. And judging by the time of day he edits his blog and OC-Wiki page, it looks like he spends both work and home time on this personal endeavor. Or is it a professional endeavor? It is hard to tell if an OC employee in charge of marketing OC on the internet making edits on OC time is, in fact, working in his capacity as an OC employee.

I didn't claim anything. I put up some links on the TALK page. So just for the record, that is the end of your criticisms of my actual edits to the OC article. Everything from here down is typical confused, hateful bile. Furthermore, you don't know about my work arrangements, so don't presume to tell me how to do my job. This is way over the line. Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And when will Dan stop resorting to the straw man of “anonymous”. There are a ton of anonymous editors at Wikipedia. Because you choose not to be anonymous doesn’t mean other people can’t. And if arguments weren’t anonymous, would that change the substance of the arguments?

I don't think that word ('straw man') means what you think it means. I'm just saying that I'm here, editing under my own name, with my biases out in the open, while you consistently employ personal attacks from an anonymous IP. And you presume to lecture me on ethics. Yes, it is ironic. Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan, tell me again – why did you post all of those links about diversity at OC? I’m quite certain that the original paragraph contained the fact that Mike O’Neal was trying to improve diversity issues at OC. And, of course, we dare not even think of what OC’s retention of homosexual students might be (they count as diversity in most of the civilized world as well). And tell me again, why did you include the links comparing OC’s retention rates to OC’s past retention rates? I’m quite certain the paragraph in the Wikipedia article was comparing OC’s retention rates to other schools in OK.

If you or other editors don't like sources I provide on the TALK page, feel free to ignore them. This isn't about ME, or YOU. It's about writing an encyclopedia. Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess when you claim that people are making “unsupported” claims, what you mean is they are using facts that don’t support you rather than the facts that do support you.

No, I still stand by my edits to the OC page and my actions here. You have yet to successfully attack one of my actual edits. You're attacking ME, my actions in warning vandals, my edits to MY OWN TALK page, my comments on this talk page, my work ethic, and everything but what's actually relevant to this discussion. The facts are, I have removed very little from the page. I've made very few substantive edits. I have followed Wikipedia policy in warning vandals, using Wikipedia templates. You have it out for ME PERSONALLY for some reason, which is baffling to me. I can only guess that you have some simmering hatred of my employer, and unable to attack them directly, you have chosen this forum to anonymously vent your rage where there are no consequences or social pressure to behave yourself. Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish people would stop doing that to you. It makes it awfully hard for you to win arguments when they go out and find out the real deal. Next thing you know, people are going to point out that OC’s rank of 7th out of 21 in the U.S. News and Reports list of western comprehensive colleges only includes a handful of colleges and universities in OK. 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to write an encyclopedia. It's one of my hobbies. Once again, I ask that you leave me alone. Stop attacking me personally. Danlovejoy 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Dan, it's a straw man because it's a lame argument that you're setting up for the sole purpose of defeating. Being "anonymous" isn't some kind of strategy I'm using. It's just something boring you bring up every time to pad your terrible arguments. As usual, Dan, you have also confused reality with your fictional world. I had to bring up all of your edits because you had apparently forgotten about them. Just like you forgot about the boner page, heh heh. And what do you finish off with? You guessed it - the "anonymous" garbage again. Dan, as I've tried to explain to you several times despite your unwillingness to listen, is that I've done the OC thing. And I went through all the channels for change. They don't work. OC is its own oligarchy. As usual, anyone who wants to improve OC through means the administration hasn't thought of is clearly out to get OC because they hate OC. It's really easy to think everyone else has bad arguments and useless criticism when we can just label them as "hating" something. It'd be a real shame to even pretend like other people might have a rationale, alternative point of view. I'm actually trying to save OC from people like you who can't see reality. When OC is gone in fifty years, it will be because the administration squandered one opportunity after another to throw money at problems, expand the bureaucracy, make-believe OC has wonderful statistics... YES! GROUPTHINK! BAY OF PIGS! THE CHALLENGER EXPLOSION! THE IRAQI INVASION! Let's throw OC up there, too with all the wonderful groupthinkers. let me join in the frenzy of unthinking jibberish.


So you concede that I haven't made any improper edits? Danlovejoy 04:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You did it, Dan. You made a real argument! See what you did. You had an argument that went unrefuted, and you brought it back up. That's how this whole thing works. Whaddaya know. We've got one person who made a legitimate argument. Please, Colbot, Akbar, come look at this! Now I know you've conceded about a million of my arguments, but we'll let that slide for now. This hour is an hour of rejoicing!
I'm not going to address any of these personal attacks/incivility from now on, except to refer them to RfC. Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
But, no, Dan, I didn't condede that. You forgot that my argument regarding your edits is two-pronged. One, that your edits are biased toward OC - which you deny.
Which you have yet to point to with a single link. As I have conceded, I have made ONE possibly controversial edit about the covenant, and I have asked for compromise language - I am happy to discuss that ONE edit with you. Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Two, that you have incited the vandals by not following the guidelines at Wikipedia.
Once again, you accuse, but you have no - zero, evidence. You can't provide a link because it doesn't exist - there IS no evidence. If I accuse you of drinking puppy smoothies for breakfast, and continue to repeat my accusation without any evidence, does it become true? Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
When you feed trolls, they get bigger and hungrier, Dan. And they remember. They remember where to come back to when it's time to eat again. And trolls don't just eat...they feast.
You're right about that. Very lyrical as well. :-) Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Why did you remove that the covenant was widely-panned?
Because it's POV and controversial. Because of this, it requires citations and supporting evidence. Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You had previously left that statement in when reverting the page. Why remove that OC has poor retention and graduation rates?
I didn't. See my edit history. Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You know, just looking at the article right now, about half the content on the page is by people who have been accused of being vandals or being POV.
Patently, completely, obviously false. See the page history. Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Now, if we're assuming good faith, do you think those comments are there to insult OC or are they there to inform people.
The motivations of the editor are inconsequential. The test is 1.) Is it true? Perhaps - I don't really know and 2.) Is it proven? No, it isn't. No references. No citations.' Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Why might someone come to the OC page on Wikipedia? I would guess a very likely to reason is to learn about the school they are considering going to. Aren't those statements that you removed the kinds of resource information that are encyclopedic?
In a word, no. The ONE statement I removed was unsourced and uncited. Thus, it was not encyclopedic. Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
And I'm not even sure how the references to Wheaton or Pepperdine were POV. Those are fine schools, nothing to be ashamed about from borrowing from them.
Sure, nothing to be ashamed of. And it's not vandalism. But I found no references to back this assertion up. And I looked -- a lot! My problem isn't with mentioning them. The wording said that the covenant was "an attempt to emulate" these schools. This requires a high level of evidence. If you'd like to propose compromise text, please do so. The covenant is reminiscent of that of those schools - the covenant resembles those. The President of OC came from Pepp and OC's covenant resembles that of Pepperdine. Fine. Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
And Dan, the times you edited the page consecutively involved reverting vandalism? 06:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. I often make edits, realize I've been sloppy, and return to fix a typo or spelling error. Possibly reverts to vandalism. You're the one accusing here, so the burden of proof is on you. I just don't see how consecutive edits are consequential. Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I am greatly relieved that we are finally getting to discussion of the article and my actual edit history. Once again, you haven't provided any links to any malfeasance on my part, no links to violations of Wikipedia policy. In short, no evidence whatsoever. You've accused me of making edits I clearly did not make, and written quite a lot of stuff that's irrelevant to the Wikipedia.
So if you'd like to continue to discuss my edits, and the OC page, that's fine. But I'm going to ignore any blanket accusations, and any accusations that don't have specific links to edits I have made. I will be happy to defend any edits you point out, or perhaps concede that I edited improperly. But, let me emphasize again, I'm going to ignore any accusations that don't link to specific edits.
If this concludes our discussion, and I sincerely hope it does - I wish you the very best, and a very Merry Christmas! Dan Lovejoy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope you understand if I don’t reply to everything. At this point, this conversation has become very time-consuming. I’m only going to point out one or two mistakes that you’ve made this time, because honestly, I don’t know how anybody can ignore the erroneous nature of these particular statements.
“Once again, you accuse, but you have no - zero, evidence. You can't provide a link because it doesn't exist - there IS no evidence. If I accuse you of drinking puppy smoothies for breakfast, and continue to repeat my accusation without any evidence, does it become true?”
Okay, there are two problems here. First, argument by analogy is never a good choice. The analogy itself is improper. Second, the analogy itself doesn’t make sense. (If I do drink puppy smoothies for breakfast, it’s still true, even if you don’t provide evidence. The only possible “out” is that the stating of the accusation didn’t in itself make the act of drinking true. Of course, if we’re still actually applying the analogy out this far, you’d be accusing me of making statements with the intent to make them enough times that they become true. Just silliness.)
You also make a strange assumption that if I don’t link to the evidence that it doesn’t exist. If you’re unable to go to the history page and see all the vandalism on the Wikipedia page that is directed at you personally, and if you think that other pages at Wikipedia (on the whole) as obscure as this one suffer as much vandalism – then this is clearly a lost cause.
You claimed it’s demonstrably false that “POV” editors and “vandals” were responsible for about half of the current content, yet the introduction, OC Policy, Cascade College parts, and the comments about Alfred Branch and the name Oklahoma Christian University of Science and Arts were written largely by,, and CapnCrack. The “Famous alumni” section that stood for a long time was also written by a POV/vandal, and the currently disputed paragraph about graduation and retention (which has now been proven to be true) was written by POV/vandal.
Right here is an edit you made where you left in the “widely-panned” comment:
And here:
And here you left the “ranks poorly” comment:
Now, all we need to do is to get Alkivar to end his bullying tactics, and we can get all of these edits made appropriately. 11:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So just to be clear. Those three links are all of your evidence that I've edited improperly. Dan Lovejoy 15:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a disturbing trend. I say something. Someone tells me that I’m wrong and that I need to cite s source. So I cite a source. People concede that ground. At what point will people notice this on-going trend?
Don’t you get it, Dan? We both made claims, and those claims were opposed. My claims were backed up by evidence, and yours were not. That harms your credibility – not mine.
To show you that you are still wrong, here are more links that prove me right. You said, “Once again, you accuse, but you have no - zero, evidence. You can't provide a link because it doesn't exist - there IS no evidence..” You said that in response to me saying that you have incited the vandals with your behavior. No evidence? No links?
Here is a vandal retaliating against you on the OC article:
And here:
This link starts about four or five consecutive edits where you and a vandal go back and forth vandalizing and reverting all within a matter of minutes:
While we’re at it Dan, I have more evidence of who is behaving and who is not. You told me to review the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Compare some of the examples listed under Wikipedia’s policy compared to your statements:
Wikipedia says no to “threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.”
Yet here is an example of Dan trying to get a student in trouble with his or her educational institution, “Stop vandalizing the Oklahoma Christian University page or I will have an admin block you and report you for violation of the University of Oklahoma TOS.”
Wikipedia says that “accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.”
Here are examples of you repeatedly calling someone a troll:
Note that those instances of using the term “troll” were in edit summaries, and the page regarding personal attacks says, “Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.”
All of this also refutes your claim that there are only three links that prove you’ve edited improperly. There’s still more, but I really just don’t want to spend all of my time proving all this stuff. It wastes my time, and it just causes you to endure more losing arguments, and that’s just not beneficial at this point.
Besides, how much of evidence and how many ill-advised edits does it take before I have made my case? More than three links? More than ten? You see, CapnCrack didn’t get any chances to redeem himself. He was blocked immediately. I was warned without having done anything wrong. What’s the standard, Dan? 23:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps in the real world braggadocio, doggedness, and an utter contempt for the truth serve you well in winning arguments, but you have made an accusation against my integrity which I simply cannot tolerate.

You have two complaints against me. The first is that I have dealt with vandalism inappropriately. I can concede two points there - I should not have referred to OU's AUP or used the word "troll," even for an anonymous vandal. I make no excuses, and throw myself on the mercy of the admins for those mistakes. Second, I shouldn't have accused you of being a vandal. I have repeatedly apologized here for that. I'm going to stop now.

But other than those two points, you're completely off track, even with regard to vandalism. You write from the assumption that reverting vandalism is improper or "feeding the trolls." This is blaming the victim. Reverting vandalism is a huge job, that entire squads of Wikipedians take on. There is nothing improper or untoward in reverting vandalism. In fact, it's looked upon as a virtue by almost everyone in the actual Wikipedia community.

Finally, your core accusation, which you have repeated on the Admins' notice board is that I've made improper POV edits to the Oklahoma Christian University page.

He has sided a guy danlovejoy who frequently edits the page in a biased manner (he is the online marketing director for OC, doesn't get much more biased than that). 

(Wikilink and emphasis mine) This very serious accusation remains completely and utterly unproven by anything you've cited here. I've repeatedly demanded that you cite evidence of my improper editing of the OC page, and after repeated demands, you came up with three edits. Your argument is that these three edits were improper because I made changes to the page, then came back and made other changes to the page, editing a section that I had previously left alone.

You see, this IS an actual straw man argument. You can prove that I've made this kind of edit. So you've won, right? Well, no. Because what you've proven I've done is completely proper and normal in Wikipedia. You suggest that once you've seen it, and left it alone it's inviolate. To suggest that one can't go back and edit content one has previously left alone is completely indefensible and has no basis in Wikipedia policy or common sense.

So I have a compromise - you retract your accusation that I have made improper edits to the Oklahoma Christian University page, here and on the Administrators' notice board, and I'll admit that I have dealt with vandals inappropriately here and there as well. What do you say, anonymous? Dan Lovejoy 11:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


So, why has this guy taken upon himself to abuse his powers to turn the OC page into garbage? He deleted the entire edit history, and he keeps restoring inappropriate sections. I keep deleting a comment that's not needed, and he finally left that alone. But why is reverting an instance of lower-case "churches of Christ"? I don't even with capitalizing it, but that is the consensus at Wikipedia. Even in the article all the references to "Churches of Christ" are capitalized, so why be inconsistent and have one lower case?

Why keep adding the section about homosexuality? It's not NPOV (and possibly factually inaccurate). Homosexuality is " a topic of much discussion among students, alumi, and activists?" There's no evidence for that. It's just a lame intro so someone can add an absurd section about homosexuality. Numerous small, private universities throughout the US have similar policies, so why should OC be the only one where the majority of its Wikipedia entry is overtaken by this issue? Granted, there are a lot of things wrong with OC, but I think criticisms of OC can be kept to one pargraph. Four pargraphs dedicated to juse one criticism is over the top. The article is completely misleading. SOmeone might come to the article now and assume that homosexuality and is a live, controversial issue OC is wrapped up in, and that's just not the case.

Nice work deleting the entire edit history also, Alkivar. Wow, it really takes a lot of integrity to whipe out the entire history.

I'm going to change the capitalization to make it correct, and I'm going to remove the section about homosexuality until it can be justified or truncated into one pargraph that covers other criticisms.

It's a sad day when Wikipedia becomes the playground of an administrator playing the role of bully. Really nice work, pal. 01:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar is getting it from both sides here. He has previously protected the article from vandalism and tried very hard to make the article better. So let's show a little grace and appreciation to him and try to keep this out of the realm of the personal. He is certainly not a bully. As far as I can tell, the personal-attack trolls have left the conversation, so perhaps we can make this page civil once again.
The problem with the criticisms is that they are unsourced. the DSM IV has nothing to say about OC's policies. In other words, it's NPOV to state the policy. It's POV to condemn the policy. It would be NPOV to report criticisms of the policy, but I don't believe there are any published criticisms of the policy. Of course, these kinds of edits are propagated by POV pushers that will only be outlasted, never persuaded. So good luck with that. ;-) Dan Lovejoy 05:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I had to delete the page in order to remove the edits with the obscene edit summaries, the edit history is in the process of being restored. Sorry I had to go to work before I could finish what I started last night.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 09:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
OK DONE, all edit histories that are not blatantly obscene and offensive have now been restored, any offensive edit summaries and edits which were mere vandalism were skipped when restoring edits (I think I got most of the vandalism). As for the lower case churches of Christ, that was a mistake in my reverting. I was unaware the version I last reverted to had been using lower case. It is my understanding this should be Capitalized and I have done so. So now, feel free to continue the debate regarding POV/NPOV and the materials here. But please be aware of the following:
  1. I am not Christian, nor do I care about your religion.
  2. I am not a student, nor faculty, and I have never been to OCU, so please dont claim I'm pro POV'd here.
  3. My entire edit history to this article is reverting what I see as vandalism, and minor formatting fixes. I neither created the content in question, nor know one way or the other if its POV. I merely formatted it.
  4. I do not pick sides here. I don't know Dan Lovejoy, and would like to keep it as such.
 ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 09:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but let's not keep adding the section on homosexuality. It gives undue weight to the subject. The homosexuality section takes up half the OC article, and that is in no way representative of the importance of the issue regarding OC. It's POV to leave it in the article. POV doesn't have to be in the form of biased language. 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I put back in the section on homosexuality, but I drastically shortened it in order to give it the weight it deserves. I also removed some words that revealed a certain bias, such as "antiquated". (R3NL 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Redact Students' Names / Blogs[edit]

Any admin that is watching this page, I'd request that you redact the two references to student blogs way up there and remove them from the history. Can you do that? They are both Xanga blogs. Neither student wants to be dragged into this discussion. Dan Lovejoy 04:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Which history? this talk page or the article itself? Let me know and i'll be glad to take care of that.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 10:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This talk page. Thanks. Dan Lovejoy 04:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

debated content removed from main article[edit]


Though there have been some recent changes in OC's policies, the University's position on homosexual students has become a topic of much discussion among students, alumi, and activists. Because OC is a private college, they maintain the right to impose requirements upon students that would be considered unnacceptable at public universities. Homosexual students are not explicitly forbidden from attending OC, however, they are far from encouraged to do so. The policy apparently extends a requirement that students refrain from engaging in or even advocating homosexual behavior not only on the campus and at campus activities, but also into their personal activities.

"Oklahoma Christian University believes the Bible and believes that the Bible does not recognize homosexual lifestyles as an acceptable human behavior. For this reason the University does not tolerate activities and promotion of homosexual lifestyles on campus or at University sponsored events. If a student is found to be advocating or practicing homosexual lifestyles or activities they will be required to attend professional counseling or be removed from the University. The violation of this policy and refusal to participate in counseling will be cause for immediate dismissal for the University." [1]

This policy statement is ambiguous in that it is unclear if students are expressly forbidden from being homosexuals and in that it does not delinate between being a homosexual and being a heterosexual who advocates equal rights for homosexuals. It is also worth note that the University mandates therapy for students in violation of their policy. This seems to draw upon the antiquated notion that homosexual behavior is a psychopathology (even though homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973).

It should be noted, however, that only 13 states have laws explicitly forbidding discrimination based upon sexual orientation and that Oklahoma is not one of these states. [2] As such, it would be legal for OC to dismiss a student solely for being a homosexual. In states that have laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, dismisal based on sexuality alone would be overtly illegal - much like dismissal of a student for being of a particular religion or ethnicity.

  1. ^ Oklahoma Christian University Handbook (8-17-04 Revision) (PDF)

News to add...[edit]

I thought this article was only semiprotected... at any rate, here's a sentence to add to the "OC policy" section once it is unprotected...

Staff and faculty members can also be terminated for divorcing except for specific scriptural reasons. [3]

  1. ^ Marriage and Divorce on campus - 1/06 (Smartmarriages mailing list)

-- CJewell 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Request filled.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 10:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism[edit]

I thought this page had been blocked from editing by new users. And yet, vandalism by same persists. What gives? IronDuke 03:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please change evolution reference[edit]

As I am a new user and unable to edit the OCU entry I would like to request that the statement "Full-time, tenure-tracked faculty are still required to be members of the Churches of Christ and are discouraged from teaching evolution" be changed in the OC policy section to delete the phrase "and are discouraged from teaching evolution".

My reasons are as follows:

1. The reference for this statement does not support it as fact, making it POV. The cited article states that research on evolutionary psychology would "probably be discouraged at Oklahoma Christian University in Oklahoma City". Probably? Either something is prohibited or allowed and unless someone can post a statement otherwise, the teaching of evolution is not prohibited at OC. The article only interviews one person at OC, the department chair of the psychology department, Ryan Newell, who admits that the university has hosted speakers who have presented research on evolutionary psychology. He states that such research actually being performed at OC could present problems because "we're all pretty careful about offending people who support the university,". While this is certainly a true statement, many other faculty could say the same thing about many other topics that have been taught at OC and that have offended people. Just one example would be alumni/supporters who get angry with various positions being taught within the Bible department on "controversial" topics such as instrumental music, the role of women in the church, biblical literacy, etc. So we basically have one professor, who is not even in the primary department that would deal with evolution, stating that something PROBABLY would be discouraged because faculty don't want to anger supporters. While I do not disagree with Dr. Newell this is hardly enough to state a fact on the entry that OC as an institution is discouraging its faculty against teaching evolution.

2. Evolution is actively being taught at OC. I am a 2002 graduate with a biochemistry degree and the Introduction to Zoology class deals with evolution in quite a bit of detail at the beginning of the semester. The 2005-06 catalog (available at describes the class as "a study of the dynamics of animals with an emphasis on structure, function, heredity, ecology, and behavior with a survey of various invertebrate and vertebrate phyla,". If necessary I could most likely procure a syllabus for the current semester that would go into further detail of the class and what topics of evolution it covers. I can also say that within the class evolution is presented as scientific theory in the same sense that we also study the theory of the cell. Faculty do not present it as controversy, it is taught as science along with everything else in the department that is studied.

3. Within the Bible department (again looking at the 2005-06 catalog) I see no classes teaching or supporting Creationism, the common alternative to evolution. There is a class listed on apologetics but it states that it is concerned with the proof of the existence of god, an entirely different and arguably unrelated question. There is also a class listed called "The Scientific Christian". It states that it explores the relationship between science and faith and that its purpose is "not to answer all the hard questions, but to assist Christians in thinking about their own responses to them,". As someone who took a similar class during my tenure (albeit under a different title and possibly under different instruction) evolution was debated, but not ignored. The faculty did not take a position and provided us with materials ranging from Richard Dawkins to Creationist articles. The class was designed for each student to make up their own mind.

4. Many other faculty members could probably be interviewed and state things that they also feel they are discouraged from teaching in order not to offend alumni/donors. I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for faculty to air out the frustrations of teaching in a conservative environment.

I would like to state that my purpose in posting this is not to start a debate on the merits of evolution nor what OC's policy should or should not be. I would just like to see this statement removed as it is attributing beliefs and judgements to an entire institution based upon the conjecturing of one faculty member and is thus POV. The teaching of evolution may be unofficially discouraged, depending on which building on campus you are in, but the fact remains that it is indeed being taught as science and has been for some time. I feel the OC entry on Wikipedia should be concerned with facts, such as enrollment numbers, location, history, etc. Debate of Church of Christ "controversies" should be reserved for other websites. 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation tag for Spring Sing[edit]

To say that anyone has won "for the last five years" is neither verified nor encyclopedic in nature. A list of the Spring Sing winners would be encyclopedic, and could reference campus publications as a source. At the least, provide specific years for clarity. I could not tell by reading the article if 2006 or 2007 was the fifth victory. Ezratrumpet 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


The current lead calls Oklahoma Christian University a Comprehensive school, which is to say, a British high school. This is misleading and incorrect. I believe that the curriculum could more appropriately be described as a modern version of the liberal arts education, or one could submit to the rather cumbersome US News and World Report label, "masters degree-granting institution." In any case, the section on Academics needs to be improved to project the actual nature of the curriculum. Josh a brewer (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Location: Edmond/OKC[edit]

The article says that OC is located in Edmond, OK, but I'm not sure that is technically correct. The school's page lists an Edmond street address, but an OKC PO box. Edmond's city map clearly shows the city borders going around the campus, and OKC's map appears to show it as part of OKC. Could someone that knows clear this up? StevenBell (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the school as a physical address in Edmond but a mailing address in Oklahoma City. That would make the school's location Edmond. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The school is just outside the Edmond city limits and is in Oklahoma City. See Reagscoop (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

More notable alumni?[edit]

Today I was reading an article about Molefi Kete Asante and was quite surprised to find he was an OCU grad (well, OCC). I looked at this article and didn't see him listed, so I did some online research and found it was true; in fact, it was the third of four schools he attended with roots in the churches of Christ (Nashville Christian Institute, a black boarding school; Southwestern Christian College; OCC; and Pepperdine). So now he has been added, but it leads me to remark on the fact that this addition brings the grand total of notable alumni to four (4), and in many ways, I'd say he's the most notable of the four, if only in the sense that he's one of the major names for his field and the other three are far less famous in theirs, though notable by objective standards. I wouldn't want to see this get like Abilene Christian University's section on notable alumni, where people constantly try to add people whose claim to fame is, say, a single funny line in a movie — OK, I'm exaggerating, but not by much! — but it's hard for me to imagine that in 60 years this school hasn't produced more than four famous people. So I'll suggest here that editors familiar with OCU look to see if any notable alumni mentioned in the school's literature have Wikipedia pages, and start with those. Lawikitejana (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There are probably more alumni to add, but here are a few things to note that will explain part of the disparity. ACU is three times as large and twice as old as OC. ACU also has a much larger and older graduate program and sports program, and athletics and graduate schools are probably the most likely to produce notable individuals (outside of theater). Chicken Wing (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)