Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nursing

Regarding this edit, may I ask why the Nursing Program merits inclusion over all the others? We're not here to provide a WP:DIRECTORY. BelloWello (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be removing this information as a violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Please discuss it on this page and achieve consensus before reading it. Since we already provide the number of degrees, there is no reason to provide details for just one department. BelloWello (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a Start class article. As it develops the other schools and departments will be added. It is typical for university articles to describe their academic areas. This content is relevant and does not violate WP:DIRECTORY. Lionel (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when is a listing of programs (products) appropriate under wikipedia policy when it is not received mention in third party sources? BelloWello (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to WP:NOTDIR #5, that refers to product prices. Your suggestion that the Nursing Program is a product is interesting, however I disagree with it. It is an important component of the university. Lionel (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What product does a university offer? Degrees. So why is a list of product/degrees that haven't received coverage in reliable sources notable? Again, is it your position that every department in a university inherently deserves its own section in the article? There are currently 21 undergraduate departments at SAU, do each deserve a section? BelloWello (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In any event, the policy applies to prices. There is no prohibition on adding products to an article, even if the Nursing Program was a product. Lionel (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So you support 21 sections of that size based on only Southern's website? BelloWello (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(more or less answered in radio sstation) Lionel (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it hasn't been. Do you support 21 sections of the size of the edit for each of the departments? BelloWello (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So... We're agreed that WP:DIRECTORY refers to product prices and as long as pricing isn't included this has no bearing on the Nursing Program? Lionel (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should reply to my previous question. BelloWello (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

School of Journalism and Communication

The article for the School at one time was 14978 bytes. Then an editor started deleting entire sections per notcatalog, notadvertising, copyvio. When he got it down to 1927 bytes he tagged it for speedy deletion. Speedy was declined, it went to AfD, the result was "merged" to this article. Well, it was never "merged" to this article. We need to add the content before it was stubified by a certain editor, from this version. It will make a wonderful addition to Academics. Let's make sure not to plagiagize. Am I crazy or is the deletion of the Nursing Program and the radio station the same thing that happpened at School of Journalism and Communication? Lionel (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry for removing copyvio straight out of the catalogue. It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable to REMOVE copyright violations! BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is unnecessary, misplaced and counterproductive. I specifically stated that when we do merge the content, "Let's make sure not to plagiagize." I was in effect saying let's not make the same mistake of adding copyvio to this article as was done in the previous article. Lionel (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"We need to add the content before it was stubified by a certain editor" paraphrasing doesn't undo copyright vios. "Am I crazy or is the deletion of the Nursing Program and the radio station the same thing that happpened at School of Journalism and Communication?" After you've been accusing me of everything under the sun for those. That statement is unnecessary, misplaced and counterproductive. BelloWello (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you invoked WP:PARAPHRASE. Lionel (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing doesn't undo copyvio. Your condescending attitude is unnecessary, misplaced and counterproductive. BelloWello (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Scare quotes in lede

The material in the lede in quotes is not a quotation. A quotation must be attributed to the person who spoke it. Currently what we have are scare quotes. And scare quotes are not in the source, and should be removed. Any questions? Lionel (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what policies can you claim "should be removed" off of? I added quotes to specify that exact wording had been preserved. This is done on a number of articles. There is (to my knowledge) no policy that in text quotations be attributed in text, not just in the citation. Furthermore, using the exact wording from another source without quotes would be considered plagiarism. BelloWello (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE: "Quotations... provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better" and "Attribution should be provided in the text of the article." WP:MOSQUOTE: "attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section." (Since the person is not discussed attribution is necessary.) Thus, the phrases in quotes require attribution. Got it? Lionel (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't preclude using source wording without direct attribution. Stop your condescending attitude! BelloWello (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've provided 2 justifications which say quotes must be attributed. What policies can you claim "doesn't preclude using source wording without direct attribution?" Lionel (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tasering in Recent Events

This mention is inaccurate. The university officer didn't taser the individual, the Collegedale police officer did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixar (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This starts out "I am writing this letter in light of recent events that have strongly upset me..." and near the end "The author is apparently a university student." This is a "letter to the ediror" and fails WP:RS. I'm removing it. Lionel (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the school responded to it. It's commented out now, there should be another source that mentioned it... BelloWello (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Newfound collaboration

Thanks to lots of discussion, a series of compromises, a little WP:BRD, and remembering at all times the article comes first, we now have a page on it's way to becoming a respectable, neutral university article. Lots of stray tidbits have been integrated into logical sections, Academics has been expanded with sections for the Institute, Nursing and Visual Arts. The lede doesn't have scare quotes and a few NOTNEWS items are gone. Table of Contents/section titles have been overhauled. We can really do great work when we work together and refrain from edit warring. Again, thanks to everyone who made this major cleanup possible. Harvard University... watch out! Lionel (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Now if you'll excuse me, I heard there was something going on over at the Osama Bin Laden article... I'm going to go check it outLionel (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama, isnt he in a cave, living on goat cheese and berries....hmmm, whats this about a 'mansion..life of luxury'...But anyway, excellent job guys on the article, very good upgrades and a final balanced view that everyone can take pride in.....Simbagraphix (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Radio station

How can it be both owned by a private college and a public radio station? BelloWello (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi BelloWello. Note at this site: https://www.southern.edu/wsmc/about/Pages/historyofstation.aspx#1996 Up to 1996, WSMC seems to have been affiliated with NPR. In 1996, NPR went over to WUTC. I presume that the term "public radio" means NPR? Or, does it simply mean broadcast to the public. That would make all radio stations public. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the word "public" from the section until a source can be provided. BelloWello (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Matrimonal College

Is there a reason we need to include this nickname in the history? It is not encyclopedic and from a google search doesn't seem to have achieved wide (if any) usage in reliable sources. BelloWello (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have found one source at Adventist Archives:

Doris Burdick. Treasures Found on a Christian Campus. Southern Union Worker, March 1, 1986, p. 32.

I think we should make a distinction between "acceptable" sources and "reliable" sources. The blog references to "Southern Matrimonial College" convey a reliable bit of Southern's student life. But blogs are not "acceptable" sources. Perhaps Wikipedia will come to accept the reliability of some blog information. I do believe that this nickname of Southern was quite pervasive. I lived in Canada before going to school at Southern and we had heard the nickname in Canada. It was undeniably a significant part of Southern's reputation. While attending Southern, I became aware of the intensity which some of the students placed on their matrimonial hopes while at the school. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Burdick is RS. Lionel (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just searched through that document and nothing would come up for "Matrimonal" or "Southern M." Do you have a page number? BelloWello (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article is a primary source since it is published by the entity that directly owns SAU. BelloWello (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

redundant claim
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:PSTS "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" Lionel (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC) You posted that below as well. I see no reason to have the same discussion in two places. BelloWello (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Secret of the Cave

Can someone please find a secondary source that covers Secret of the Cave and its award? I can't seem to find one. BelloWello (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked over the citations on the Wikipedia article Secret of the Cave. There actually seems to be a significant number of citations possible. Also, Spectrum did a review or two. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to find one. Fancy that? I didn't even think to look at the film's article! BelloWello (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Undo Refactor

Bello, why did you undo the refactor? Lionel (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not pertain to improving article content, and, hence, is off topic. BelloWello (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

Lionelt, out of curiousity, is there a reason you only mentioned the removal of redundancy in your edit summary for this edit but didn't mention your arguably more substantial addition of material to the lead? BelloWello (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't an addition, it was more of a revert of one of your edits, described as "correct to source." Lionel (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding "spacing" edits to article

An editor who maxed out on his reverts for the day recently added a few "spacing" edits to the article. This had the effect of breaking up another editor's consecutive edits. He then filed a 3RR warning against the editor. Be careful. Admins are watching this article due to the recent edit warring and will block first and ask questions later. Lionel (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Perhaps a certain editor will try and block me again (for the 4th or 5th time). Fountainviewkid 03:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Change of wording in lead

User Lionelt thought it was necessary to remove quotations from the lead, dubbing them scare quotes, however, this fails to provide a rationale as to why it should say "focus on conservative values" instead of "emphasis on conservative religious and social practices" as the reliable source says. The source wording is more accurate, clear and we would be doing our readers a diservice by wording it differently. Hence, I will be reverting it to source wording. BelloWello (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think "fails to provide a rationale" is accurate taking into account all the time I invested in explaining my rationale above? Lionel (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You provided an (I believe invalid) rationale for removing the quotations from the lead, however, you never provided a rationale for changing the wording. BelloWello (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The title of the source and the text itself use this wording. Your example is less clear, not as professional and uses a phrase that is less common. The other users have all agreed that this is the best choice, therefore it should remain that way unless you can create a view of the users that is the opposite Fountainviewkid 00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Hey buddy, did you read the source? Because the wording that I took out is not in the source. BelloWello (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Read the title!! "Southern SUSPENDS Home Nursing Program" (my emphasis).Fountainviewkid 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Uh buddy, you have clearly shown that your reading comprehension is not very high. Please read the first message in this thread and then tell us what we're talking about. BelloWello (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Ah, I see. Sorry I was responding to another discussion. Fountainviewkid 01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Yes, that discussion is in another thread. I'm going to hat this. BelloWello (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are no valid arguments/rationales as to why a change away from the original source wording is necessary, I will revert the article to the source wording soon. BelloWello (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

1. I outlined the relevant policies here.
2. Multiple editors have restored my edit, and reverted yours. You do not have consensus. Lionel (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a separate issue. I conceded the "square quotes" issue to you because it wasn't worth the effort, nowhere was it discussed to change the wording away from source wording. I don't care who reverts what, it needs to be discussed if contentious. Consensus is reached on the talk page, not by counting edits on the article. BelloWello (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be reverting it back to source wording since no rationale as to why the original source wording was inappropriate has been provided. Please discuss before further changes. BelloWello (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

It appears to me that there is an editor working against the established consensus of myself (Lionelt), Fountain, and Simbagraphix. This editor makes numerous and substantial changes. We have to edit the article back to the consensus, only for this editor to revert. Questions:

1. Do you agree that there is an editor working against consensus?
2. How do you suggest that we deal with it? Lionel (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the civilized thing to do is to agree to discuss differences here before we make controversial changes to the article. In other words, once a change has been disputed, the text should be restored to its reading before the dispute and then we should discuss here and seek for a consensus. We should agree not to add any disputed material until we reach a consensus on the wording. This calls for a sense of goodwill between us. Also, I have an interest in developing the history section of this article in a general approach unrelated to disputes. I don't think that those developing edits need a consensus before adding them. It is possible that even those can be disputed, though they usually aren't. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to working together. Why don't we view ourselves as an editorial committee addressing issues common to us? This committee will only seek to resolve differences, not to control edits that are undisputed. Wikipedia has lots of time. We don't need to rush things. Let's take advantage of our mutual interest in this SAU article and make it better because we discuss our differences. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Its hard to discuss when Simbagraphix simply reverts without ever discussing, and Lionelt simply makes condescending comments pretending he explained everything (when in fact he hadn't done anything of the sort) and Fountainviewkid simply insists on his version refusing to compromise. BelloWello (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Case in point, we had a large discussion above as to whether the word "masturbation" should be included in the title of the section. I simply dropped the subject since it became clear we were not getting anyway and allowed it to be removed and it wasn't cruical. As soon as it was removed from the title, certain editors removed the whole root cause (the spark that set it off) from the controversy opting for vague language. These types of changes need to be discussed before they are made, instead certain editors seem to believe that contrary to WP:BRD those that are reverting need to justify themselves. BelloWello (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed that Simba, Fountain and myself are not reverting each other. But all of us are reverting your edits? Why? Lionel (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made any substantial changes to the article since it has become contentious. So under WP:BRD, those that are making the change should start a discussion when their changes are reverted. BelloWello (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you are including in your "consensus" an editor who has not discussed a single change. BelloWello (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless a discussion starts here regarding one of the many changes made contentious changes made recently to the article without discussion, I will not responding to this thread that does not pertain to improving the article. Lionelt, may I suggest you read WP:SOAPBOX? BelloWello (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The changes are only contentious to you. Simba is correcting edits that were made against consensus. Lionel (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We had a consensus, and a balanced view, and a good article. We need to get back to that level and it seems there is one editor who needs work with the others to achived that from what is evident here and in the article. Lets get to work in a coloberative effort with everyone pitching in to make it better, not push a negative or offensive article. Simbagraphix (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone care to discuss content instead of making accusations? Changes were made without discussion, I reverted those changes, the onus is now on those making the changes to start a discussion as to why their changes are necessary. BelloWello (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Simba. Bello, the changes you are making are against consensus. The onus is on you to try to presuade Simba, Fountain and myself of the value of your positions. Lionel (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionel is correct in his assessment, we have to work together and the reverts on balanced and correctly documented entries must stop. Simbagraphix (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, under WP:BRD if you make an addition and it is reverted, the onus is on your to prove that your change is beneficial, so I ask again, where is the content discussion? BelloWello (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

When a valid addition is put in and you take it out and throw in a question in the talk page to cover yourself, that is not allowing for consensus to say the least. Simbagraphix (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your invocation of BRD is ironic to say the least:

• "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus"
• "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow"
• "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once" Lionel (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the record is clear, we were at a point where there was consensus, and it was reverted by one editor who has been working against the other editors with reversions and deletions. Simbagraphix (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Working to undermine consensus is disruptive. And it's been going on too long. So, what do we do about it? Warning on his talk page? RfC/U? ANI? ArbCom? Lionel (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with all the other editors on here but one. As the "victim" of a certain editor's accusations and attempts to block me, I certainly agree that one editor has caused many problems on this page. The rest of us seem to be united in working towards a consensus. I would support any one of the suggestions proposed by Lionel. It would only be fair considering all the reporting a certain editor did of those who disagreed with. Fountainviewkid 03:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction. You had a near consensus. Lionel, Simba and Fountainviewkid have not quite reached a full consensus because Bello is not on board. A real consensus will involve Bello as well. And, myself, I suppose. I think we need to consider locking the article until all four of you can agree. (I am willing to leave myself out of this.) A consensus is not always easily won. Sometimes it takes serious compromises and the article ends up more conservative than anyone wishes. But it is the only common ground. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are well considered, Donald. Though I hope this is not the case, I fear that we have reached the stage where "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." (WP:CON) It is important to get Bello on board, but should he choose to be intransigent, we have to keep in mind that "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." (WP:CON)

I find it laughable that User:Lionelt continues to claim consensus and that I am holding things up when my replies in numerous threads have not been replied to. I also find it amusing that consensus is found with editors who have not discussed a single content related question yet. Furthermore, a certain editor continues to claim primary sources a suitable when shown CLEARLY by two editors that they are simply not enough for inclusion in the article. BelloWello (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we were well on our way to consensus as you can see in my comments on 'Newfound collaboration', working toward a balanced and good representation of the university and its faculty, staff and students. But if you have one editor who only wants to write about murders, tasering, fires and other unpleasant or offensive issues and deletes or reverts anything else from others, well you can see the problem. If you wanted to write an article about St Judes Childrens Hospital, how many employees were murdered, or got tasered when employment was terminated, or were held up while off the Hospital grounds would not be representative of the Hospital or its work, and that seems to be a constant with BelloWello or he deletes any addition that does not present that view....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How can we even begin to respond to any content related questions when what was under discussion was already deleted, the content removed or changed into a completely different viewpoint, and using a post in the talk page does not give you permission to wipe out the other editors work. That seems to be how you work, post one entry in the talk page then immediately roam through article and make changes or deletions without waiting. It can take a few days of discussion to work consensus, dont just post a question in the talk page and go at it. Some of us work or have other important duties which do not allow us to just spend 24/7 on a talk page. Please be considerate of others time and access and not just post a question and wipe out sections at your leisure with no consensus....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Such is WP:BRD, you be bold and make the change, it is reverted, and then the discussion commences to seek consensus. What you are doing instead is make the change, it is reverted and a discussion started, and instead of participating in discussion, you simply revert the revert. The onus to prove the value is on those making the change. That would be you, Fountain and Lionelt. BelloWello (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets get it right, I put in additions and you deleted or reverted then put in a discussion to cover your tracks, we even had come to a good point were consensus was very close if not reached and you took out the additions, all the other editors saw it and the others can check the additions and see what was deleted outright with a quick post to cover the deed....It is clear which editor is working against consensusSimbagraphix (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag bombing

The article has been tag bombed. Per WP:TAGBOMB "Tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing." Lionel (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose we remove the boxes (the large templates) and leave the inline tags. Lionel (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we substantially prune the number of primary/SAU-affiliated sources from the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I second above proposal by Hrafn. BelloWello (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:TAGBOMB is merely an essay. WP:PSTS is policy and states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Where a section is based solely or substantially on primary sources, it is in violation of that policy. Where these sources are affiliated with the topic, it is also likely to be in violation of WP:NPOV in that it will present the topic mainly, or entirely, from the topic's own perspective. I would suggest that these problems are far more urgent than the fact that some sections of the article have been tagged. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• As the only third party source for the 'School of Visual Art and Design' is IMDB (which is very mediocre both from a viewpoint of prominence and reliability), I would also propose removing that section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to work on the article and find secondary sources. However, the policy states "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Note that it does not state that "Where a section is based solely or substantially on primary sources, it is in violation of that policy." I do not think using the university for background information about itself is that big of a deal. Based on the policy, the primary sources are OK. Lionel (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It becomes a problem when the proportion of such material becomes excessive. If an article "should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", there is the clear implication that primary sources should not be used to any significant extent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I second Hrafn's proposal to remove the section. BelloWello (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

imdb is gone, so rationale to remove the section is moot. Lionel (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So now we have a primary source. Why don't you reply to Hrafn's comment above? Or any of the many threads I've begun with you. BelloWello (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lacking a reliable third party source to demonstrate its prominence, why should the article mention the 'School of Visual Art and Design' in preference to any number of other schools or departments? We cannot mention all of them without violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we should not pick and choose arbitrarily, so that leaves us the obvious metric of only discussing those that are discussed by third parties (a metric closely analogous to WP:DUE). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the proposal to prune primary/SAU-affiliated sources, if the source passes WP:SELFPUB then it is WP:RS per policy and should remain in the article. From SELFPUB "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities." Lionel (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SELFPUB more closely -- it explicitly demands that "the article is not based primarily on such sources." And you have not answered my question of "why should the article mention the 'School of Visual Art and Design' in preference to any number of other schools or departments?" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is not based primarily on SAU-related sources. By my count the article has 39 sources (excluding Wedgwood). Of those 7 are SAU-related. 82% of the sources are non-SAU. Lionel (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the school is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, media outlets owned by the church are SAU-related. I count well over 15 of those. BelloWello (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you counting Adventist Today? It's editorial policy is "Following basic principles of ethics and canons of journalism, this publication strives for fairness, candor, and good taste. The editors realize that many church members prefer an official presentation of news and issues, and respect that view. Adventist Today is for people who prefer to think issues through for themselves on the basis of all the available facts." And it's progressive. Lionel (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That a source is not "SAU-related" does not mean that it is not a WP:SPS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't which schools should/should not be included, the question is: is the content reliably sourced and is the source verifiable. Is there a policy restricting the amount of sourced content in an article? No. If 21 schools are reliably sourced, and there is consensus, then the article will have 21 schools. Lionel (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." "Is there a policy restricting the amount of..." WP:PRIMARY & WP:SPS in the article? Yes there is! If you try to include material on all 21 schools based upon primary/SPS coverage, you've got a good chance of being hit with an RFC seeking wider scrutiny of the decision. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is a school article. I think WP:UNIGUIDE can provide some insight: "It would be appropriate to mention the notable academic divisions (such as faculties/schools/colleges)" [1]. Lionel (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and let's also remember that third-party notice is Wikipedia's benchmark for what is "notable". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well having murders, tasering, fires and other crimes and misdemeaners, may be 'notable' or 'National Enquirer' material, which while 'merely being true', or even 'verifiable' lending itself easy to insert, but is it represantive of the institution, its staff or its students. I think you see my point, you have to primarily write about what the institution is about, not just use incendiary or offensive words or events. Thats why consensus balances out the article and we had come to a point that the majority of editors were in agreement, and to wipe that out and justify with a quick question on the talk page just does not seem correct....Just looking at and pruning primary/SAU-affiliated facts will take good content out for no reason, we need to look carefully and see what is representative and neutral and what is not or just distorts or 'National Enquirer material ad nauseam', and prune some of that material to start with as we work on a consensus.....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the SAU site needs to be cited with care. Some facts on the SAU cite, i.e. programs, etc. are quite reliable. Afterall, families interested in the school must rely on the information available on the site. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I recently went through the process of choosing a school. You would be shocked how unreliable college websites are. BelloWello (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You may disagree, but WP:SPS and WP:UNIGUIDE support Donald, as do myself and Simba. Lionel (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The School of Visual Art and Design now has 4 secondary sources. This satisfies the objection re: imdb. If there are no further objections we'll consider the matter of inclusion settled. Lionel (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

UNIGUIDE is not a policy. You have not replied to Hrafn's arguments against inclusion of SPS, hence, your assertions are of no value. BelloWello (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Miscellany

What about a section for Notable alumni? Mascot? And please, please, please tell me they have a football team. If I've spent all this time on a univ w/out a football team I'll kill myself. Lionel (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article under student life, it clearly states they don't have any varsity teams. Haha. Does that mean I should call the suicide hotline? BelloWello (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Did "a certain editor" revert it when noone was looking? Anyway I'll take your word for it as everything I know nothing of SAU, Adventism, Ellen White, etc., is from this article. That was cruel, Bello. Cruel. I'm wounded... To the core. Lionel (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who removed it, I added a sentence about their intramural program and the fact that they didn't have any varsity teams a while ago, someone probably deleted it since it wasn't promotional which is apparently how articles about colleges should be! BelloWello (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ownership entity

I made this unsourced edit to the lead of the article. I feel that the owner/operator of an entity is inherently worth including in the article. Although currently unsourced, I am sure that with a little searching, this will be easy to find a citation for. BelloWello (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Change of title, rewording.

I have retitled the section "Early 1980's masturbation controversy" rather than just "Early 1980's controversy," in that, it is more descriptive and unique to this article. There were plenty of controversies around the world in the Early 1980's, the one at Southern needs to somehow be differentiated. BelloWello (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, that part of the article has become quite large in comparison with the others... I'm afraid anymore additions and it might become WP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelloWello (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be differentiated, but the title is still rather misleading. The President and board member were not removed (or made to resign) because of a debate over the issue masturbation. The issue instead was over the authority of Ellen White as a doctrinal guide for the church. I would suggest a title such as "Controversy over Ellen White's Authority" or something to that effect. Fountainviewkid 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The controversy started because a member of the faculty said he disagreed with Ellen White on the medical effects of masturbation, although it grew into part of a wider church conflict, that is what started it at Southern and sets it apart from the others. Hence, I think including the topic that caused the disagreement in the title is reasonable. BelloWello (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Masturbation was only the initial spark. The board member and President did not leave because of masturbation views. They left because there was a dispute about the role of Ellen White. The masturbation issue was a small part of a larger controversy involving the role of Ellen White in the SDA church during the 1980's which continues to this day. The topic which brought Southern into this debate was one smaller issue therefore I believe it is better to have a title which is more generalizable and broad. I see others agree. Fountainviewkid 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Masturbation was the cause and most significant specific aspect. The masturbation issue was the question that caused the "scandal" on campus that the administration was forced address and the president left over. BelloWello (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't trying to cover the part of the large controversy, this is only covering the "small part of the larger controversy" that occurred at Southern, and that small part, revolves around the Masturbation issue. BelloWello (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Authority of Ellen White was the most significant aspect which caused the "scandal" on campus. Fountainviewkid 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What caused the scandal was the fact that some faculty members did not agree with Ellen White's pseudoscience regarding masturbation. How can I make it clearer for you? BelloWello (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the issue was Ellen White's views on scientific issues, not the issue of masturbation per say. Basically I say give a general title and allow the details to follow. After all that's the way the rest of the article is written. Recent Events, Ideology, etc. don't have detailed title pages, and I think we should have the same policy. Fountainviewkid 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The other sections don't have anything specific, except for the section on names, whose necessity is caused by name changes. This is about a controversy caused by views on masturbation, hence that should be reflected in the title. Can you please reply to the section regarding labels as well? BelloWello (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe we should keep a consistent policy. Either give details for all the other section titles, or keep this one general. The controversy was on the authority of Ellen White, hence that should be reflect in the title if anything specific should be there.Fountainviewkid 21:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the source? I just did and very little of it even deals with masturbation. "They revolved around three main areas: teaching concerning righteousness by faith versus perfection; the inspiration of Ellen White; and the concept of the heavenly sanctuary." I would argue that my edits have been closer to the situation at Southern.Fountainviewkid 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from this and think about it. My blood pressure is currently rising. BelloWello (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. That's why I went and read the source. Seriously just take a read through the article. I think it should help contextualize the issues.Fountainviewkid 22:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a short period to encourage you two to conclude this discussion in lieu of edit warring over the changes. Please let me know if you resolve before the protection expires, and I will remove it. Kuru (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you. Hopefully we will resolve this issue. Fountainviewkid 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not gonna worry about this till tomorrow, perhaps Fountainviewkid will take the time to actually answer my comments by then... BelloWello (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

THE CONSERVATIVE NATURE OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA If we have a choice between sensationalist wording and conservative understatement, I prefer the conservative understatement for an article in an encyclopedia like wikipedia. Re: Southern's Crisis. The crisis was not long focused on Ellen White's medical views re: masturbation. That was just momentary. Look over the original source, i.e. the Spectrum article. The masturbation controversy was soon in the background as the challenge to orthodoxy developed. To headline the crisis in the early 1980's as "The Masturbation Scandal", or similar, is very sensationalist and rather inaccurate. I can't imagine that masturbation was on the minds of the board as they dealt with Gladson, Knittel, Francis, Zackrison, et al. The crisis did not long focus on masturbation. I suggest that this title does not describe the developing crisis at Southern in the early 1980's. It may have triggered the crisis but it was not the reason for the resignations or firings. Also, the teacher's comment about scientific evidence hardly seems something that would stir up leaders. Perhaps a fringe of the laity, but not the leadership. They would look for reasons which would stand up in board discussions. I attended Southern in the mid 70's and recall meeting a few of the fringe laity. They were quite volatile. But Southern's crisis did not revolve around the masturbation controversy; rather it revolved around the inspiration of Ellen White, the inclusion of textual criticism in the theology curriculum, etc.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with DonaldRichardSands (talk) on this one. I only used the "medical" title to try and placate BelloWello (talk). Having re-read the source article I definitely agree the issue was far more broad and focused on significant theological issues. I also agree that the "masturbation title" was too focused on sensationalism, rather than professionalism and accuracy. Perhaps we could call it "1980's Theological Crisis", or something of that sort. Fountainviewkid 3:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is certainly about more, or at least the controversy with the church at large, but the controversy at Southern was kicked off when some fringe-right-wing individuals were alerted through the disagreement on masturbation that some faculty did not believe in Ellen White. This grew to become a part of the larger 1980 Theological Crisis (which I think deserves an article...) but the biggest disagreement at Southern began due to the disagreement over Masturbation and it never really changed... BelloWello (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the source article!!!! The issue had VERY little to do with masturbation. Read what DonaldRichardSands (talk) said! To quote him "Southern's crisis did not revolve around the masturbation controversy; rather it revolved around the inspiration of Ellen White, the inclusion of textual criticism in the theology curriculum, etc.". The big disagreement was NOT about masturbation it was about these other core issues. Fountainviewkid 2:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did. The issue in the larger church didn't revolve around masturbation, but that IS what kicked it off on Southern's campus. BelloWello (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again talk to DonaldRichardSands (talk). The issue even at Southern was much greater than masturbation. That was merely one of the many events that happened on the campus. That Florence lady didn't come to Southern just because of masturbation. She came because she heard about "liberal views" which expanded far beyond this one issue. Masturbation IS NOT what kicked off the issue. Other issues the inspiration of Ellen White, the inclusion of textual criticism in the theology curriculum, etc. were the main cause. Fountainviewkid 3:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I will discuss it on THIS talk page. I don't deny those were factors, but the witch hunt was kicked off when Masturbation was discussed in church. Did you even read the section? BelloWello (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the source article? The controversy was over theological issues. Masturbation was one small portion. I read the Spectrum Article; all of it, as well as other articles detailing the controversy. Fountainviewkid 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did too. I already said I don't deny that there were other issues, but the controversy on southern's campus was kicked off by a theologian stating their disagreement with Ellen White on masturbation. BelloWello (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The controversy was over a number of theological issues. Masturbation was more of a side topic. Fountainviewkid 19:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement on masturbation was the spark that set if off. BelloWello (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, actually other issues were also set. Masturbation was merely one issue among a larger set. As I said see what DonaldRichardSands (talk) said.Fountainviewkid 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote, I already read what he said. The event that started this whole controversy was a member of the faculty discussion masturbation and disagreeing with some of White's conclusions. BelloWello (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the article as well. The controversy did not have one single event. There were several many relating to the theological controversy. Why keep trying to sensationalize that which is not. Fountainviewkid 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the controversy had one single event. The controversy began because of a discussion that centered around masturbation, or can you not recognize that? BelloWello (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The controversy began because of multiple issues which congregated together. One of these issues was Ellen White's comments on the issue of masturbation. Can you not recognize this?Fountainviewkid 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already recognized that there were multiple issues in play by the time it was concluded. Can you not recognize that the issue which set off the witch hunt was the statement on masturbation? BelloWello (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already recognized that a controversy over Ellen White's statements on masturbation was one small part of a larger set of theological issues at Southern. It was NOT the issue which set off the controversy. Fountainviewkid 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue at Southern began when some members of the laity learned that a faculty member did not agree with Ellen White on masturbation, hence, setting off the controversy that morphed to include other issues. BelloWello (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died out without a consensus being reached. The current title may be alright as long as it provides context on what exactly set off this controversy at southern. BelloWello (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to resurrect the whole discussion but as I read over the comments, one thing caught my attention and I think is worth pointing out. The theology teacher said that he had not seen any scientific studies which support Ellen White's statements. That is quite a careful thing to say. I don't think we can conclude from that comment that he did not believe in Ellen White's inspiration. Some in the church who believe in her inspiration allow for her to be a product of her times, not infallible, not inerrant, etc. Inspiration allows for a broad range of views. I think it is probably accurate to say that some concluded that the teacher making those remarks did not believe in Ellen White's inspiration. In the midst of Gladsen's crisis a bit later on in the mid 1980's I called him and asked him what was going on. He expressed appreciation that someone was trying to get their real views understood. Some features of a tightly knit community like Collegedale can create imaginary dragons or at least bigger than life, inflated, issues. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)