No edit summary |
|||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
Broader context=its a fundamentalist school in the south which lagged in terms of desegregation. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.192.114.128|75.192.114.128]] ([[User talk:75.192.114.128|talk]]) 05:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Broader context=its a fundamentalist school in the south which lagged in terms of desegregation. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.192.114.128|75.192.114.128]] ([[User talk:75.192.114.128|talk]]) 05:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:::::That sounds very much like the same thing Bello Wello said. I do not know if the IP is or is not, the banned user, but it certainly sounds suspicious. As for being "fundamentalist" that is very much a matter of debate. Seventh-day Adventists are not categorized as "fundamentalists" and never have been since they do not believe in "verbal inspiration". As for "lagging" in terms of desegregation...not really. Yes compared to the most public ones, but compared to the average private conservative Christian university in the south it was pretty much average.--[[User:Fountainviewkid|Fountainviewkid]] ([[User talk:Fountainviewkid|talk]]) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::::That sounds very much like the same thing Bello Wello said. I do not know if the IP is or is not, the banned user, but it certainly sounds suspicious. As for being "fundamentalist" that is very much a matter of debate. Seventh-day Adventists are not categorized as "fundamentalists" and never have been since they do not believe in "verbal inspiration". As for "lagging" in terms of desegregation...not really. Yes compared to the most public ones, but compared to the average private conservative Christian university in the south it was pretty much average.--[[User:Fountainviewkid|Fountainviewkid]] ([[User talk:Fountainviewkid|talk]]) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::Being an Adventist yourself you're hardly partial. I grew up in the Adventist faith, graduated HS from a small 1 room Adventist school, attended SAU and SWAU, but I'm not an Adventist now. So I'm probably not 100% impartial as well. But irregardless the Adventist faith is definitely fringe when it comes to Christianity, and is even classified as a cult by some. The date they first desegregated is probably valid for inclusion. Stating if this was late for the country as a whole would require some [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] which we don't have. — <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Raeky|<span style="background:#669900;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">raeky</span>]][[User talk:Raeky|<span style="background:#99CC66;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">t</span>]]</font> 07:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:22, 27 August 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Religiously loving environment
This edit of the IP's is an incremental improvement. Lionelt's reversion of it was not good. The IP named the source of the POV quote "religiously loving environment", and the IP moved that quote out of the first sentence in the section called "Student life". The move makes for much better logical flow: where it was, the quote was used as proof that the the university has a conservative emphasis. How can "religiously loving environment" possibly imply conservativism? It can just as easily imply centrism or liberalism... more likely the latter. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Binksternet for providing a thorough rationale for what I thought would be a common sense edit. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Birk, see here [1]. The IP has been blocked for being a sock of a previously disruptive editor on this page Bello wello. BW was the instigator of this whole thing with a biased POV quote against Southern calling it "Ultra-fundamentalist" and part of "bible belt obscuratanism".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You have nothing to say about the edit itself? Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm tried of being a broken record. This edit has been extensively discussed in previous situations where I said a lot. I can repost it if you like, it's probably in the archives.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Pssst, FVK, I think his name is Bink, not Birk. --Kenatipo speak! 16:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well all I can see is that "religiously loving environment" cannot possibly be a proof of conservatism. The sentence as it was constructed was a synthesis and not supported by the source. I am glad somebody else came in to break it up as it made no sense. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Right. Sorry Bink. As for "conservative" I don't remember if you were or were not a part of the whole discussion. We had a long long discussion on that issue. That's one reason I "have nothing to say about the edit itself". I'm letting you guys take care of it, only adding in my support here and there.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm tried of being a broken record. This edit has been extensively discussed in previous situations where I said a lot. I can repost it if you like, it's probably in the archives.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Removal of puffery
I removed this because the source of the statement is not sufficiently independent of Southern to be considered a objective source for such information. Please take to WP:RSN if you disagree instead of simply adding it back. Good day. 66.112.115.182 (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please allow for consensus before proceeding in such an abrupt manner. Your edit style is very much like the recently blocked IP and Bello Wello. We do not need more dispute on this article over POV and the like.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia needs a rule which only allows registered, logged in users from removing other editor's work. User 66.112.115.182 should log in to an account and work in an equitable fashion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted all of this IP's edits as that of banned User:BelloWello. That said, IPs are allowed to edit any article that is not semi- or full-protected. LHM 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
History of Editing Seems to Call for Semi-protection
Hi all, it seems as though this SAU article is the ongoing target of unregistered editors. Why not seek to have it protected so that only registered editors with identifiable names, not just IP numbers, can edit this article. This Southern Adventist University article needs tough editorial scrutiny; it will be better for it. But, the unregistered editors often do not have the courtesy needed to make the tough edits a learning experience. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. How can we do this? I imagine our friend LHM knows more about this than we do?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Given the history of disruptive editing here; I'm going to semi-protect this at least as long as the 1RR is still in place. Kuru (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good see your still watching it all. Hopefully I've engaged a bit better wiki behavior than previously.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Given the history of disruptive editing here; I'm going to semi-protect this at least as long as the 1RR is still in place. Kuru (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Time to drop 1RR?
It seems to me that the 1RR restriction is no longer necessary on this page. I say this because out of the three accounts that had the most problems, two (Tatababy and BelloWello) are gone indefinitely and the other (Fountainviewkid) seems to be doing much better - thanks in no small part to BW's departure. Also, the issues that fed the previous edit warring seem to died down and/or been resolved. I see there are issues with IPs and possibly sock accounts, but those can be dealt with by blocks and semi-protection. At this point, 1RR looks to me to be an unnecessarily severe restriction on the editing of this page.--Kubigula (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree with this assessment, the primary dispute seems to have passed. I would prefer to keep the semi up for a short time, regardless of the correlation I implied above. Kuru (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I support the semi. Bello is still around in the form of IP's as this appears to be one of his latest [2]. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hearing no further comment or objection after 5 days, I am going to say the consensus is that the 1RR can be dropped (though the semi-protection should remain in place).--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
really?
this sentence from the lead needs a better source than some random website Southern submitted info to that is posting it verbatum: Southern has a strong record of acceptances into medical, dental, and law schools and its symphony orchestra, concert band, choral groups, and gymnastics team tour internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.226.134 (talk • contribs) 14:42, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Good call. I removed the sentence (and your editprotected template since that is only used for fully-protected articles). ElKevbo (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Careful ElKevbo. The removal may/may not be right, but a new IP being involved here is highly suspicious. Especially with this other edit. We could probably find a better source for such a statement, but I would suggest allowing for some Talk page discussion/consensus before unilaterally removing material with a source. It never hurts to be a little patient in these kind of endeavors.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I also belive it should be removed until a reliable source for them could be found. The source is clearly self-submitted by SAU, and thus not a source we can use. — raekyt 03:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the statement which says this source was submitted by SAU? From what I see it came from the organization TICUA.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Because this has all the appearance to be just a simple "press release" blurb that a website like this would collect on their "members." It does not have the usual things that would be considered a reliable source, like references, author, etc. Plus these kind of claims need some strong secondary source, not something that screams to be a self-published marketing blurb. — raekyt 03:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it has the appearance but we have no proof that it is actually a "press release" straight from the university. Which guidelines specifically prohibit us from using the information from TICUA in the SAU article?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- WP:RS and WP:V I would think. — raekyt 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I read those and see no reason why this statement should be taken out. If it is "self-published" this source may still be used as long as.... I would argue that this material doesn't fit into those categories of rejected information. While it could be argued that is is "self-serving" it could also be argued that such material provides useful information that benefits more than just the university. If this is self-published then it is not a claim about a third party source, is not discussing events, there shouldn't be any doubting of its authenticity as it clearly comes from a booklet put out by TICUA (there's a pdf version as well), and this article isn't just based on primary sources. Which rule specifically does this material violate?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- See below, it's clearly a WP:PEACOCK statement, and that should be reason alone for not including. There is also WP:BURDEN it's been removed so if you want it back it falls on your shoulder to prove that this information is accurate. Finding additional sources shouldn't be hard if it's true? More sources would end this debate I'm sure. — raekyt 03:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I read those and see no reason why this statement should be taken out. If it is "self-published" this source may still be used as long as.... I would argue that this material doesn't fit into those categories of rejected information. While it could be argued that is is "self-serving" it could also be argued that such material provides useful information that benefits more than just the university. If this is self-published then it is not a claim about a third party source, is not discussing events, there shouldn't be any doubting of its authenticity as it clearly comes from a booklet put out by TICUA (there's a pdf version as well), and this article isn't just based on primary sources. Which rule specifically does this material violate?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm also going to add that the statement about acceptance to medical, law school, etc... seems like WP:PEACOCK, and the bit about orchestra and band traveling seems irreverent since virtually every university sends their groups traveling... The statement needs better source and more specific information for inclusion. "Strong" is WP:PEACOCK and isn't clear, what is strong? — raekyt 03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- WP:RS and WP:V I would think. — raekyt 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it has the appearance but we have no proof that it is actually a "press release" straight from the university. Which guidelines specifically prohibit us from using the information from TICUA in the SAU article?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Because this has all the appearance to be just a simple "press release" blurb that a website like this would collect on their "members." It does not have the usual things that would be considered a reliable source, like references, author, etc. Plus these kind of claims need some strong secondary source, not something that screams to be a self-published marketing blurb. — raekyt 03:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the statement which says this source was submitted by SAU? From what I see it came from the organization TICUA.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
What about if we just edited the statement while still using the source in a way that removes the WP:PEACOCK terms? I still think this source could be used, just not as a direct quotation. For example we could say something about how a Tennessee organization has noted it's "record on acceptance to .....as well as it's musical and gymnastics groups"? Wouldn't that be more acceptable? I think it's more the problem of how this source is used than the actual source itself. Finding additional sources on this is hard, only because it incorporates multiple elements (dental, medical, law, music groups and gymnastics). By themselves it is easy to get information about each items, but combined is difficult without using sources that could be "promotional" in nature. I see no real reason why this source violates the terms above.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Whats the point? Without other sources all you can say is that some students get accepted, that should be assumed with any university. The information seems irreverent for the article unless you get more specifics. And that is if you ignore the WP:RS concerns for the source. — raekyt 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- If it's easy to get sources that state acceptance rates for various graduate schools then those could and should be included in the article, but this source I think is useless for the article for multiple reasons. — raekyt 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- What's the point? To say something about acceptance AND provide information on various unique programs the school has. Also I am not ignoring WP:RS. As you should see above I actually quoted from it in order to demonstrate that the source in question does not violate the rules or guidelines. I guess I could get sources on acceptance rates but I don't know how to do that. I will try though. I think this the source could at least be used for providing information about musical and/or gymnastics programs. Why is there a problem in just including that last bit of information while based the acceptance part on other sources?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Whats unique in that statement? If you remove the puffery then all you can say is they have traveling groups and some graduates get accepted to graduate schools, nothing is really important or worthy of inclusion? — raekyt 04:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Their gymnastics group is unique, although not everything in the article has to be "unique". This is an additional qualification you are creating. What is wrong in mentioning the music groups? Because they might not be "unique"? If so then I see no reason why the statement should have been removed. It needs a stronger negative than simply "not unique enough". After all who said this was an art contest?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- An acceptable source for what programs they offer is their website, but unless it's something that stands out from the norm, why should you list what programs they offer on Wikipedia? I find it hard to believe that most universities don't offer gymnastics? It's not a requirement I'm proposing, I'm simply responding to your comment where you said this source "provide[s] information on various unique programs the school has." I was simply asking what in that statement is unique? Doesn't the vast majority of universities offer these programs? — raekyt 04:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Their gymnastics group is unique, although not everything in the article has to be "unique". This is an additional qualification you are creating. What is wrong in mentioning the music groups? Because they might not be "unique"? If so then I see no reason why the statement should have been removed. It needs a stronger negative than simply "not unique enough". After all who said this was an art contest?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Whats unique in that statement? If you remove the puffery then all you can say is they have traveling groups and some graduates get accepted to graduate schools, nothing is really important or worthy of inclusion? — raekyt 04:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- What's the point? To say something about acceptance AND provide information on various unique programs the school has. Also I am not ignoring WP:RS. As you should see above I actually quoted from it in order to demonstrate that the source in question does not violate the rules or guidelines. I guess I could get sources on acceptance rates but I don't know how to do that. I will try though. I think this the source could at least be used for providing information about musical and/or gymnastics programs. Why is there a problem in just including that last bit of information while based the acceptance part on other sources?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay ditch the term unique and you still don't have a reason to eliminate the statements. They are relevant and provide information about the school, especially since the gymnastics and music groups are important items about the university. Are they unique? Maybe not, but that's an irrelevant issue.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree, and I think there is not consensus for your position that it should be restored. — raekyt 04:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Was there a consensus to remove it in the first place? Should there be a discussion on the Talk page before taking such measures into one's own proverbial hand? --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking only to the specific issue regarding where the burden of proof lies, I would agree with those who are asking for further--and better--sourcing for inclusion. LHM 04:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am working on better sourcing but I would suggest not eliminating sources and statements with sources until there has been ample time to discuss the issue on the Talk page.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:BURDEN if you want to re-add this information you'll need to get better sourcing, and it appears your trying to do that. As for consensus four editors here think it should be removed unless better sourcing is found. — raekyt 04:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you count a possible sock as an editor you get 4, however I would remind this consensus has come after the action, not before it. Shouldn't you FIRST get consensus and then remove the material? Even with WP:BURDEN it is still better to at least give opposing views a chance to be heard, as this is consistent with Wikipedia editing policies. Better sourcing should come, but please wait in the future before making many sudden rushes to judgement. I have to get back to checking if that IP is a sock or not.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not if the material clearly has as many issues as above. The usual edit cycle is to do the edit, since the original person bringing it to our attention was an IP editor (disregarding the possibility of them being a sock) they would of removed it themselves with the reasons given. Since they couldn't posting it here found an editor that also agreed so they made that change, and two more subsequent editors also agree. Material should meet criteria BEFORE it is included, and if it doesn't meet criteria it should be removed. That is what has occurred here. There is no need for consensus to remove something that appears to violate policy. — raekyt 05:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you count a possible sock as an editor you get 4, however I would remind this consensus has come after the action, not before it. Shouldn't you FIRST get consensus and then remove the material? Even with WP:BURDEN it is still better to at least give opposing views a chance to be heard, as this is consistent with Wikipedia editing policies. Better sourcing should come, but please wait in the future before making many sudden rushes to judgement. I have to get back to checking if that IP is a sock or not.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:BURDEN if you want to re-add this information you'll need to get better sourcing, and it appears your trying to do that. As for consensus four editors here think it should be removed unless better sourcing is found. — raekyt 04:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No matters of controversy should be discussed before sudden actions are taken. The point of Wikipedia consensus is to establish a direction on an action. By prematurely making an edit, an editor violates this spirit. It is precisely because of a material's "issues" why consensus is so important. The usual edit cycle is to observe a problem, post about it on the Talk page and obtain a consensus. Once that consensus is obtained then an editor can act. The point of the talk page is for this discussion far more than it is for pointing other editors towards engaging in specific edits. It is funny that you acknowledge the other editors agreement which came AFTER the edit. The point of wiki is not edit everything you disagree with. It's to discuss it, something that is finally being done here but which originally was ignored in favor of unilateral action. This is a debate about whether the material meets the criteria. Rather than simply pushing your view on the article is is better to obtain a consensus. As for the last sentence is so full of personal opinion that it doesn't even need responded to. What "violates policy" isn't always as clear cut as some editors would imagine it to be. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the point of wikipedia, or at least one of the big ones is WP:BOLD for which we get WP:BRD. Like I said, clear-cut cases of policy violation do not require consensus for their removal, and sticking with WP:AGF we can assume ElKevbo assumed as much. Regardless, we're at this point where it seems the consensus is against the material's re-addition without additional sources. — raekyt 05:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget this line "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus". I guess I could have gone ahead and reverted the edit which then would have brought us to the Talk page, but I tried to come to the talk page first. In the future remind me to revert first based on the WP:BRD approach. Also this is not a "clear cut" case of violation. Instead it is a questionable source which may or may not provide unique information. Yes additional sources will come, but hopefully in the future we begin on the Talk page before getting into the reverts. I've tried to make the Talk page my policy, but I guess not everyone sees the same. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- The reasons for removal are insufficient. I disagree that the material is "clearly self submitted." It is not clear. I checked the organization and did not find any "submission guidelines." It is completely within the realm of possibility that TICUA staff wrote the blurb. We do know that it is not a press release. WP:BURDEN does not support removal in this case, as it has not been established that the source is not reliable. That is what WP:RSN is for. WP:PEACOCK is never grounds for removing a source. PEACOCK content should be written so it is not POV, not removed. – Lionel (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- The issue with that is, the modification to remove the peacock word makes the information virtually pointless. The information I presume that is wanted to keep is that SAU has a higher then average acceptance rate to graduate programs, which is what the reference is referring but in a peacock way. Additional sources would be needed to substantiate that. I also don't agree that this source isn't just reposting information provided by SAU, it just seems to marketing type wording to be not the case. Additionally it was a direct quote from that website which is another issue. What would be the proposed rewording of it to remove peacock language? — raekyt 06:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Bullshit. Material can be from a completely reliable source but not appropriate for an encyclopedia article because it's vague puffery. Reliable sourcing is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- The reasons for removal are insufficient. I disagree that the material is "clearly self submitted." It is not clear. I checked the organization and did not find any "submission guidelines." It is completely within the realm of possibility that TICUA staff wrote the blurb. We do know that it is not a press release. WP:BURDEN does not support removal in this case, as it has not been established that the source is not reliable. That is what WP:RSN is for. WP:PEACOCK is never grounds for removing a source. PEACOCK content should be written so it is not POV, not removed. – Lionel (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget this line "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus". I guess I could have gone ahead and reverted the edit which then would have brought us to the Talk page, but I tried to come to the talk page first. In the future remind me to revert first based on the WP:BRD approach. Also this is not a "clear cut" case of violation. Instead it is a questionable source which may or may not provide unique information. Yes additional sources will come, but hopefully in the future we begin on the Talk page before getting into the reverts. I've tried to make the Talk page my policy, but I guess not everyone sees the same. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is no controversy here. The statement was vague and supported only by one poor source. I get that you disagree but the consensus here is quite clear so please either produce new evidence supporting the statement or move on. ElKevbo (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually there is no consensus. There are 3 editors and a (possible) IP sock arguing one way and 2 other editors arguing the other way. Consensus isn't a vote so even 4-2 doesn't necessarily establish it. As I have noted we could easily modify the wording and only say something about the music and gymnastics programs. Lionel is right in that WP:PEACOCK can not be used for removing a source by itself. There is a debate if this source is reliable hence WP:BURDEN does not apply. Of course Raeky doesn't AGREE that this source isn't just reposting information from SAU, however this is no strong evidence for such a position. And furthermore wikipedia editing isn't based on whether one "agrees" on a situation or not. It may be a marketing type and it may not be. As for the direct quote I have already offered about 5 times now to modify it so that the terminology sounds more informational and less promotional. Each time however I have been shot down by editors who are refusing to negotiate and give in. ElKevbo how nice of you to make the determination for all of us that there is no controversy here. I guess now that you've said it, it makes it so. How nice of you to decide we have consensus even though there is clear disagreement from at least a couple of editors. I will be working on new evidence but in the future I might have to use WP:BRD and hope you discuss rather than revert my revert.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you don't like it doesn't mean consensus hasn't been reached. It's pretty clear there are issues with the source and it's a basic peacock statement. If you readd it at any point in the future with the same source it will not resolve these issues and likely be reverted. Keep in mind this is a problem topic article, with past sanctions. To me it looks like you might have a bit of a WP:OWN problem with this article with your level of involvement and comments.... I'd caution you not to go against policy or consensus to try to reintroduce peacock language or rely on poor sources. — raekyt 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- " readd it at any point in the future with the same source it will not resolve these issues and likely be reverted": sounds like you are declaring an edit war. – Lionel (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- That is true Lionel. I didn't see this comment. Don't worry, I won't go against policy and reintroduce poor sources. I might however reintroduce verified sources that while having some level of promotional nature, due to provide informative material on SAU. As for peacock language, no I won't add that, though remember it can not be used as a justification for taking out a source. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- " readd it at any point in the future with the same source it will not resolve these issues and likely be reverted": sounds like you are declaring an edit war. – Lionel (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
McKee Library
The "McKee Library" section is sourced entirely to Davis, Charles E. (January 13, 1977). "Historical Library is Opened at SMC". Review and Herald (Takoma Park, Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 154 (2): 20. Retrieved June 17, 2011.. The Review and Herald Publishing Association is owned by the Adventist Church which also owns SAU. Is a self-published source sufficient for a nearly 700 character section in a relatively short article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.150.157 (talk • contribs) 12:06, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
- While this source may have some association, the publishing association is a separate entity from the university. Such a claim of "self-published" is controversial and I would oppose this change. I also note that this article has a history of IP's from a banned user acting as socks, so we should be careful about these requests. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the source is necessarily self-published but it doesn't seem to be entirely independent either. But I don't think it matters because I don't see anything particularly controversial in this section of the article. 75.243.238.70, is there something specific to which you object? ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Review and Herald is an Adventist publication, therefore very MUCH self-published for an Adventist school... at a bare minimum they're biased and not impartial. It definitely can't be considered an independent 3rd party secondary source. — raekyt 04:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Biased? Maybe. Self-published? No, not unless the university publishes it.
- Again, it's a moot point because the section seems entirely uncontroversial. It would be better with more references, particularly indisputably independent ones. But it's a pretty bland "this stuff exists" paragraph without any contentious claims. ElKevbo (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank-you for correctly explaining what "self-published" means. SAU and R&H Publishing are not the same organization. That's why it helps to have knowledgeable editors editing instead of those who don't understand context.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Depends on how you look at it, one part of the church isn't so unconnected from another part. It's like saying Sony's game division isn't the same company as Sony's music division. In some respects that's true, but they're ultimately under the same umbrella. For an uncontroversial statement of facts like this it's irreverent but for other issues they are very much relevant. An Adventist publication shouldn't be considered independent and unconnected from an Adventist university. — raekyt 04:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- A company and a denomination are 2 very different animals. Even though both may be organizations Sony's game division is probably much more in line with Sony's music division than R&H Publishing association is with SAU. Sure they may share a similar philosophy but that's not enough to argued for self-published. An Adventist publication is separate from an Adventist University. Is Christianity Today not a valid source for prominent theologians simply because both may share the same faith? Yes the magazine may have some biases, but as ElKevbo clearly noted it is NOT self-published.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Review and Herald is an Adventist publication, therefore very MUCH self-published for an Adventist school... at a bare minimum they're biased and not impartial. It definitely can't be considered an independent 3rd party secondary source. — raekyt 04:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the source is necessarily self-published but it doesn't seem to be entirely independent either. But I don't think it matters because I don't see anything particularly controversial in this section of the article. 75.243.238.70, is there something specific to which you object? ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Segregation
Per this article, we find that "Southern College admitted its first black students in 1968." Perhaps a note could be made somewhere in the article that SAU refused to admit black students for in excess of its first 75 years of existence? This seems like a highly relevant point to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.238.70 (talk • contribs) 13:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Again another controversial edit which attempts to create a negative bias in the mind of the reader. It is much more factual list the date, rather than try to make it sound extreme that Southern "refused to admit black students" for a certain period of time. The same could be said for many other prominent schools that have been around much longer. Are we to say that Harvard went "200 years before it graduated its first black student"? Such a statement is irrelevant, controversial, and inappropriate.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not seeing the necessity for this proposed edit, either. Technically the proposed edit would be more correct but given the history of segregation in the U.S. - especially in the South - it seems like a waste of space to repeat it here and in every other university article. Is there something remarkable or interesting about the segregation or desegregation of this institution? Is there a story to be told here or was this just another institution doing what nearly every institution (shamefully) did at the time? ElKevbo (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- From my understanding SAU was just like every other institution at the time. Many other institutions took a lot longer than 75 years to admit blacks. In some views this could even be considered "progressive" if looking solely at length of time and ignoring historical context. de-segregating in 1968 isn't exactly very remarkable or unusual for colleges in Southern Tennessee.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- The date can be relevant for inclusion int he article, but I do agree this is TN and unless the date wildly differs from the average date for other educational institution in the region for when they started accepting African Americans then nothing else needs mentioned. From the dates of various key points of the period, Civil Rights Act of 1968, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Twenty-fourth Amendment was 1962.Tennessee State University which is a historically black university. University of Tennessee admitted their first black students in 1952 and there is a whole section in their article about civil rights. American Baptist College started as a black college. Vanderbilt University isn't clear when their first black student was admitted, but there is a whole civil rights section, and a part about a black player in their sports in 1966. Tennessee Wesleyan College looks like they admitted black students in 1897src. From just a small sample I looked at 1968 might be a bit late for the state... probably worthy of inclusion of the date AT LEAST? — raekyt 04:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Still seems irrelevant overall unless it is part of a broader context, one which right now doesn't exist.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not seeing the necessity for this proposed edit, either. Technically the proposed edit would be more correct but given the history of segregation in the U.S. - especially in the South - it seems like a waste of space to repeat it here and in every other university article. Is there something remarkable or interesting about the segregation or desegregation of this institution? Is there a story to be told here or was this just another institution doing what nearly every institution (shamefully) did at the time? ElKevbo (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Broader context=its a fundamentalist school in the south which lagged in terms of desegregation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.114.128 (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds very much like the same thing Bello Wello said. I do not know if the IP is or is not, the banned user, but it certainly sounds suspicious. As for being "fundamentalist" that is very much a matter of debate. Seventh-day Adventists are not categorized as "fundamentalists" and never have been since they do not believe in "verbal inspiration". As for "lagging" in terms of desegregation...not really. Yes compared to the most public ones, but compared to the average private conservative Christian university in the south it was pretty much average.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Being an Adventist yourself you're hardly partial. I grew up in the Adventist faith, graduated HS from a small 1 room Adventist school, attended SAU and SWAU, but I'm not an Adventist now. So I'm probably not 100% impartial as well. But irregardless the Adventist faith is definitely fringe when it comes to Christianity, and is even classified as a cult by some. The date they first desegregated is probably valid for inclusion. Stating if this was late for the country as a whole would require some reliable sources which we don't have. — raekyt 07:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds very much like the same thing Bello Wello said. I do not know if the IP is or is not, the banned user, but it certainly sounds suspicious. As for being "fundamentalist" that is very much a matter of debate. Seventh-day Adventists are not categorized as "fundamentalists" and never have been since they do not believe in "verbal inspiration". As for "lagging" in terms of desegregation...not really. Yes compared to the most public ones, but compared to the average private conservative Christian university in the south it was pretty much average.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)