Talk:Bob Jones University/Archive 3

Personal Attacks

Personal attacks, particularly in edit notes, are not acceptable. Discuss your issues here in a mature manner or don't edit the page at all. - Sleepnomore 08:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

No Controversy

There is no controversy over the content of this article. What has happened is that one person (most likely a Christian fundamentalist or a student of the school) has come in and unilaterally tried to change an article to try and whitewash certain facts about BJU that he would like to have hidden. Inappropriate use of the NPOV tag, harrassing others who must keep reverting his vandalism, and threatening others on their talk pages is unacceptable behavior. Euphrosyne 11:48:59, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

I don't think it's acceptable to throw around allegations about people who disagree with you, Euphrosyne. We simply have differing views as to what is NPOV in the situation - I believe that having the rules there allows people to make up their own minds, whereas he believes that their presence is in itself POV, as he believes it suggests that they are unusual - something that I disagree with. There is no vandalism here. Ambi 12:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ambi. I've always contended that you all were good faith editors, and I appreciate the reciprocity on that feeling. Euphrosyne, I'm not harrasing anyone or threatening anyone. I've stated wikipedia policy. As far as this article goes, I've been fine with two versions of the BJU talk pages:

1. Don't list the rules here, but provides a version of both the criticism and praise of the rules as well as a link to the rules.
2. List the rules, but provide a NPOV warning on both the article and the rules section.

I would prefer the first obviously because it still allows readers access to the BJU rules (as well as a provable reference to them, but doesn't put them out of context where they could be POV-spun (depending on who decided to edit the page at the time). Is there some sort of compromise we can reach around these grounds? - Sleepnomore 15:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to the first because it is biased against BJU. Talking about the controversy without placing the rules there is much less informative and is inherently less neutral than allowing the reader to judge for themselves. If we end up with paragraphs of opinion, it will be POV-spun depending on who decided to edit the page at the time. There is a need for the rules to be placed in context (I think Stephen Jones' comments from the linked news article are a must to mention), and some criticism to balance out that out, I suppose, but the most fair and informative solution is for the reader to judge for themselves. Ambi 16:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more, and I'm starting to think that a better approach to the issue may be to start prosifying some of these. The rules as they are do have an important use, in that they give an idea as to what the university experience is actually like, but I'm not a huge fan of major source content in an article. We could fairly easily dispense with the large dot-point list, but convey the same content in five or so short paragraphs (internet/music/games, hours, work, mens dress, womens dress). It also needn't necessarily be in a distinct "Rules" section, although this may be the only place for it - I'm not sure. Any thoughts? Ambi 17:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea. As Willmc pointed out earlier, Ratline_(tradition) is related to Virginia Military Institute. (these two aticles will most likely merge). But the example and presidence can be set from this that VMI's rules/handbook are not posted on the page, but the idea involved in the institute is largely conveyed. I still think it would be wise to link to the rules themselves on BJU's page and place some brief criticism and praise blocks in the page (as was previously done and deleted and done again and deleted, etc). In any case, my sole objection to the entire process is to take the rules as they exist and place them out of context here in the article. I think we can all agree that it is easy to take excerpts of anything and misrepresent what the person actually meant. I feel that the rules themselves being placed here is an attempt to do just that. Like I said, I think the mention of the rules is important because it is part of the school, but I've always felt the best way for people to get a sense of what the rules are there for is to link to them on the university's website. If the rules let someone "judge for themselves" I don't understand how letting them read these on the website (first hand) would affect this. It also prevents any copyvio possibilities and sources the information at the same time. To me, it solves more problems to let hte criticism and praise exist in the article and let the rules exist on the website. This, to me, is the best way to let the user judge for themselves what BJU's rules mean. - Sleepnomore 18:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. I'm suggesting we follow the Ratline example, so the content is still covered, but I don't want a section of criticism and praise blocks, as while it might appease warring people, it is is near-useless as part of an encyclopedia article. The rules section we have now is not a section of excerpts intended to mislead; it is a good indication (particularly when so much of the remainder of the article leaves an unfavourable impression) of what the place is actually like. And why don't we link? The whole purpose of an encyclopedia is for us to do the informing, not sending them elsewhere because we don't feel like covering key topics. This is why I suggested prosifying the key parts, so we maintain the information about campus life while trying to get away from having a big long list of rules. But I'm assuming from your response that that compromise has been rejected. Ambi 23:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand. I'm actually in favor of summarizing the most notable rules and generalizing them in context, but I think it does no good to describe them without pointing them to the rules themselves on the other page. As it is, its very likely that there is a copyvio with the rules listed on this page. The whole purpose of an encyclopedia is not to be the sole source of information on anything. Rather it is meant to act as a compendium of information. Listing the rules themselves doesn't inform them of anything, particularly since they can't see the context. For instance, from your above paragraph, I could state that "Ambi stated he want[s] a section of criticism and praise blocks". That is completely opposit of your meaning, but you wouldn't know that unless you had a frame of reference to the whole sentance. I hope you are getting what I'm saying. I still think somehow that the readers should have access to the rules, I just don't think linking them here is appropriate. Feel free to do the editing on the rules page how you are describing and I'll wait to see the results before making an opinion. Thanks. - Sleepnomore 01:57, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting me. You keep telling me that having the rules here is somehow "out of context", and I've persistently agreed with you that context needed to be added. Secondly, please stop being inflammatory - I'm trying to assume good faith here, but if you're trying to restart a revert war, using the copyvio excuse is certainly a good try at it. Listing the rules here achieves plenty - in this case, it informs the reader what the school is actually like. I'm trying to look at alternatives, but based on your latest actions, it's starting to look like you're more interested in starting a revert war anyway. Ambi 02:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I've not misquoted you on anything other than to prove a point. I'm not trying to be inflamitory either. Could you point out exactly what is inflamitory about what I've just stated? I'll try not to do it again. The rules simply don't belong here. If you want to modify the section to paraphrase the rules, feel free, but the rules themselves just don't belong and are illegal in context anyway. I've done my best to compromise with everyone. I've come halfway -- agreeing to keep a section about the rules as long as it provided information about both sides of the rules. Nobody here as given anything up to compromise. I've already informed BJU of the copyright violation in case it sprout up again. Short of posting the rules again, I'm willing to again try to work out a deal, but as long as you continue this revert war I cannot work with anyone. - Sleepnomore 02:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

I've made several attempts to remove the offending material under the pretext that it doesn't belong here -- not only because it puts a severe POV on the article, but also because it is a Copyright violation that BJU certainly wouldn't grant permission for use. In the absense of being able to revert the copyrighted material once more due to 3RR restrictions, I have no choice but to bring the page up for notice of Copyright violations. I have blanked the offending section rather than the entire article since it is only one section that I can determine is in violation. I await Ambi's future attempt to modify this section and hope it solves the issues brought up. - Sleepnomore 02:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I made a good faith attempt to only remove the offending content, but the page was reverted to remove the copyvio notice. I've therefor had to comply with wikipedia policy and blank the entire page, adding the copyvio notice. Continued removal of the Copyvio notice is considered avoidant vandalism. Reverts due to vandalism do not fall into the 3RR restriction. I welcome a compromise on this as well. - Sleepnomore 02:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely what I find inflammatory; you cannot convince others of your point of view, so you try to resort to legal measures. When I've proposed a compromise, how am I supposed to take this sudden escalation? Only last night, I defended you against a user who was going way over the top in calling you a vandal for having a disagreement - but now, you do exactly the same to me. The rudeness boggles the mind.

Keeping information about the rules is hardly a compromise; skipping around this would be being deliberately obtuse when it's one of the major reasons the school is so well known. For the same reason, keeping a ridiculous section that has criticism and praise of the rules, but nothing about what they actually are, is just a bad sideproduct of an article dispute that needs to be avoided. I've offered to rewrite it as prose. I've offered to break up the rules section or rename it if you can think of alternate way of doing it. But I cannot understand why you appear to be so goddamned determined to make sure that this article doesn't mention its strictness, when it is something the school prides itself on. Ambi 02:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

First, I do appreciate the remarks last night against a user who accused me of vandalism when I clearly did not engage in vandalism. Your ability to come out on the side of right despite your feelings on the argument itself are to be commended. Second, your removal of the copyvio is a violation of Wikipedia policy and I had no choice but to inform you of this on your talk page. Third, if you had agreed to do the rewrite, and left the article how it was until you had done that rewrite, I would not have escalated this -- it wouldn't have needed escalated because it wouldn't have had a copyright violation. I've agreed repeatedly that describing the rules would be appropriate if the school is so well known for them, but continued use of the rules in the way you have, engaging in a revert war over my attempts to simply make the article look at both sides of the argument was over the top. You agreed to rewrite and I was satisfied, till you got your last jab in by reverting to a version that included the rules. My only option is to alert BJU and wikipedia of the Copyright violation. - Sleepnomore 02:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I was asked to look into this by Sleepnomore via email after s/he was blocked for 3RR. I am inclined to agree with him/her that the list of rules as they stand are copyvios as nearly the entire section is copied verbatim from [1], [2], and [3] without so much as being indicated as quotes. Even if were set off as quotes, I am disinclined to believe that the copying of three webpages to such large extent meets the minor portion requirements of fair use. Consider it this way, someone wanting to learn about the rules at BJU would get roughly 70% identical content at their website and ours, and that is going too far. Consequently, I am going to comment out those sections in the main article and ask that people either find a way to paraphrase them, quote smaller portions with proper citations, or replace them with simple links to the BJU site. On the question of Sleepnomore's block, I am disinclined to lift it as I believe this was an edit war under a different guise. The dispute in question, while serious, does appear to have been a good faith disagreement over whether those sections were copyvios and hence Ambi's actions were not vandalism, and not subject to a revert exception. Dragons flight 04:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I also got an email about this, and basically would like to echo what Dragons flight just said. The block may have been justified, but I believe a premature lift would probably be okay if Sleepnomore agrees not to revert and to discuss this matter civilly here. android79 04:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The block was clearly justified by Sleepnomore's fourth revert. I would suggest it would be best to leave it in place: making specious claims of copyright violation in order to suppress information is not appropriate behavior, nor is claiming an "exemption" from the 3RR by calling a disagreement "vandalism". - Nunh-huh 04:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that calling the removal of the CP notice "vandalism", and thus claiming exemption from 3RR, is clearly not kosher, but I don't agree that the copyvio claim is "specious" or "spurious". We've got three verbatim copies of clearly copyrighted webpages in this article. WP:CP says to remove the offending material and suggests a rewrite of that material. android79 05:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that both Sleepnomore and Ambi violated 3RR: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The fourth revert comes less than 23 hours after the first. android79 05:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like "specious", try "disingenuous". The concern was not "is this fair use or not", but rather "how can I get this uncomfortable information purged from the article". - Nunh-huh 05:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Regardless of intent, a case can be made that this presents a copyvio problem, a case I happen to agree with. android79 05:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring evidence of bad faith. - Nunh-huh 05:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with that. Ambi put the rules back 5 times in 24 hours. As a result I have blocked her for 24 hours as well. Dragons flight 05:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also having received an email about this, I condone the actions taken by my fellow admins. Both violated 3RR and both were blocked. Inter\^Echo 20:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Rules

I've paraphrased the rules section in my own words and added it back in. If there is a problem, let me know on my talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 22:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikify = Totally Pointless

Whoever just "wikified" this page is including links to things such as "shoes." Umm...do you really expect someone to come to this page and not know what shoes are? Very pointless if you ask me. Iamblueman4 21:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-Shek

I searched their home page, but couldn't find anything to verify that Chiang Kai-Shek had anything to do with the university. C/D? 24.18.243.211

On the contrary, Chiang seems to have had plenty to do with Bob Jones. He was a friend of Jones (both were Methodists) and according to a dubious source was one of the founding trustess of the university. [9] While I haven't searched long enough to find a source that exactly says he got an honorary degree, it is not unreasonable. -Willmcw 06:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I searched for about 10 minutes and couldn't find anything. --Viriditas | Talk 08:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia count as a source? Chiang Kai-shek#Presidency in Taiwan. -Willmcw 09:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that I couldn't find any sources other than Wikipedia, which doesn't help verification attempts. --Viriditas | Talk 09:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Franken "allegations"

I am somewhat troubled by the numerous edits of the Al Franken part of "Criticism of BJU's art collection". It is quite clear in the audio book, narrated by Mr. Franken himself, that the "allegations" are said rather tongue in cheek. I think it is important to note that his "allegations" are not made in a manner as to truly suggest that the BJU art collection was actually plundered from Jewish families, his own or otherwise. I think the edit wars on this particular part are due to personal biases for or against Mr. Franken. Maybe it should either be included that some feel that his comments were most likely tongue in cheek, or this part should be removed all together.

Disclaimer

User:Barberio is trying to add a disclaimer to the rules section, but as the rules are clearly labeled and sourced, I don't see how this helps the article. --Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Statements of opinion must be clearly stated as opinions. The article does not explicitly state that the rules section contains opinions, so it is prudent to clarify when opinions are mentioned. I see little reason to make an objection to this, can you please supply a reason why this should not be clarified before you make another revert. The Abercrombie & Fitch rule is the only rule providing the university's reasoning behind it, if we are simply presenting the rules, then we should remove the mention of their opinions about Abercrombie & Fitch, and state them elsewhere in the article. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 23:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the rules section clearly states that these rules belong to Bob Jones University and are sourced as the opinions of Bob Jones University. I'm going to place the actual quote on the page. --Viriditas | Talk 23:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The rules section does not clearly state that the following rules contain opinions from the University. Placing the one rule that does contain an explicit opinion in quotes with a link to the original rule set does not make clear that it is an opinion. It is an implicit sugestion, but we must be explicit. Their opinion on A&F is noteworthy, and should be mentioned, but should be explicitly mentioned as their opinion. By explicit, I mean the word 'opinion' should be in there, as in 'In the opinion of Bob Jones University...'. Please note, imho, your last edit almost certanly counts as a revert for purposes of 3RR. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 00:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The rules section clearly states in the very first sentence, "Bob Jones has a notably strict series of rules governing life while at the university. [3][4][5]." Notice, these rules are based on the opinions of the university. While you might not recognize that these rules contain opinions (rules of "ease", use of the word "feminine", "fashionable", "questionable content", etc) they do. See the references cited in the rules section, as they contain opinions like, "Loyalty to Christ results in separated living. Dishonesty, lewdness, sensual behavior, adultery, homosexuality, sexual perversion of any kind, pornography, illegal use of drugs, and drunkenness all are clearly condemned by God's Word and prohibited here," as well as "The subjects of personal photos should exhibit the modesty and appropriate physical contact we expect from our students," and gems like "You may not possess or play computer and video games rated T, M, or A or having elements of blood and gore, sensual or demonic themes, or featuring suggestive dress, bad language, or rock music." Further, we believe that biblical principles preclude gambling, dancing, and the beverage use of alcohol." And, there is no way that my last edit could count as a "revert" as it wasn't reverting to any known, last version but instead, replacing paraphrased text with an actual quote. Furthermore, your disclaimer, "One rule directly targets a specific company due to the opinions of Bob Jone's Universtiy" is representative of your POV and is inaccurate. BJU isn't "targeting" anyone but merely giving their "reason" for their rule banning Abercrombie. If they were "targeting" A&F they would be taking direct action against the company in some way. I don't see that in the rules. The rules target many things as the references show, including homosexuals, "dancing" and musical artists such as Michael W. Smith, Stephen Curtis Chapman, and WOW Worship. Adding "in the opinion of Bob Jones University" should be moved to the top, so that it applies to all the rules -- and that's not a revert in any way. --Viriditas | Talk 00:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas' suggestion (clarification at the top of the list) makes a lot of sense. However, Viriditas, your last edit(s) would constitute a revert in many editors' eyes, including my own, but rather than rules-lawyer and revert back and forth, please continue discussing this here. android79 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I support any adition to the text that Explicitly points out that this is an opinion. I think the best way would be to state their notable opinions above the rules. A paragraph along the lines of,

College administrators state with pride that their institution's unchanging ways are like "stroking the cat in the wrong direction." [8] Their rules express the opinions of the university's administrators, including bans on Rock Music, enforcing strict gender specific dress codes, and limiting access to "immoral" materials. One of the rules specificaly targets Abercrombie & Fitch and its subsidiary Hollister, due to the opinion of university administrators that the company expresses anti-christian and "degenerate" attitudes in its actions and advertising.

Note, the rule does specificaly target A&F for a direct punative action. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 01:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see BJU's actions as punitive. By protesting the use of their labeled clothing on campus, they are punishing their students, not A&F. If anything, this kind of "protest" increases attention for A&F, thereby making them more popular. Note, it appears that students can still wear A&F clothing if the tags and logos are removed. Obviously, this won't work with the stitched logo items. --Viriditas | Talk 01:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley - "Popular"?

In the 'Famous honorary degree recipients', Ian Paisley is referred to as a 'popular British politician'. Well, while he's been popular enough at home to be regularly elected, he is universally loathed outside Ulster due to his hard-line stance and agressive demeanour. I don't think you can accurately say that he is popular in Britain.

Accreditation

Looking over the USDE site, recognized agencies are broken down into two cats: national and regional. The regional bodies accredit the comprehensive colleges and universities. But the national bodies accredit specialized programs (e.g. American Bar Association reviews law schools). Transnational is on the reocgnized list of nationals. But I'm not sure how limited their scope is because their site doesn't seem forthcoming.

lots of issues | leave me a message 12:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Interracial dating

Quote from the article: "The former policies of Bob Jones University on interracial dating are indebted to the founder's view that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage; though today Bob Jones University sometimes claims that the policy is a product of a (1950s) legal threat on the part of the parents of a female Asian student who threatened legal action after learning that their daughter was dating a white student."

This paragraph is basically accusing the university of lieing about its past motives. Can someone provide a source for the fact that "The former policies of Bob Jones University on interracial dating are indebted to the founder's view that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage"? --69.241.37.86 17:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right that the bit about the founder was unsourced. I have modified this to "some have suggested..." which is a formulation that I don't like a whole lot. If somebody wants to delete this sentence about the founder entirely, I have no objection. On the other hand, the past claims of the university, as opposed to its founder, are a matter of public legal record. The university claimed in court that its interracial dating policy was based on sincerely held religious belief, and the District Court of South Caroline affirmed this based on its hearing of the evidence. I have added notes to clarify this. As to whether BJU is lying now, or was lying in federal court from 1980 to 1983, or whether new evidence has come to light that somehow invalidates the evidence presented before the District Court of South Carolina, that's for the reader to decide. NPOV requires us to state the facts only. k.lee 20:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

followup: I went ahead and deleted that "some have suggested" sentence. It wasn't really needed. If someone has a source on the founder's beliefs, feel free to add that info. k.lee 20:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The original question here has still not been addressed--the assertion that the policy is (at least partially) the result of this threatened legal action. Although someone sources that from 'Christianity Today' magazine, I am not familiar with any other source and have no idea where CT got that information. I attend the school and have never heard any University official make that assertion. Jordan 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Asian claim: from [10]

KING: All right, why -- explain this, why they can't date.

JONES: Well, being a Bible believing institution, Larry, we try to base things on Bible principle. The problem we have today is that our principle is so greatly misunderstood. People think we don't let them date because we are racist, in other words to be racist you have to treat people differently. We don't. We don't let them date, because we were trying, as an example, to enforce something, a principle that is much greater than this.

We stand against the one-world government, against the coming world of anti-Christ, which is a one world system of blending, of all differences, of blending of national differences, economic differences, church differences, into a big one ecumenical world. The Bible is very clear about this.

We said, you know, way back years ago, when we first had a problem, which was -- by the way, we started this principle, back in the mid-'50s, I was a college student at BJU at the time and it was with an Asian and Caucasian is -- we didn't even have black students for another 15 years. So it was not put there as a black thing, I think people need to understand that.

-- k.lee 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Helmond

I've removed Katherine Helmond from the list of alumni. The source [11] cited for her being alumni says only that she was in a bible movie produced by BJU, not that she's a graduate. As Helmond is a Catholic and comes from Irish Catholic stock (thus not a convert) it's difficult to see how she could have enrolled in BJU in the 1940s, let alone graduate. Homey 02:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found a source [12] that explicitly states Helmond *did* attend BJU. I find it perplexing but I guess stranger things have happened. Homey 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tournament

• Bob Jones University also hosts a yearly high school tournament for Christian High Schools across the nation.

This line would be more helpful if we knew what kind of tournament this is. Sports? Chess? Debating? -Will Beback 00:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

From memory it is a range of sports, such as basketball etc... And could very well include other "sports" such as chess and debating (I think debating was one of them, but my memory isn't sure.) There should be a mention of all this somewhere on their website. Mathmo 23:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Accredited last year?

Wcover said in a recent edit summary that Bob Jones was accredited last year. [13] Could someone please provide a source for this? This is something that, from the looks of things, we've been debating for a while. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

BJU applied for it last year, but it can take several years for it to come into effect. At this time, BJU is not officially accredited. 5 April 2006

BJU has been granted candidate status by TRACS which is a temporary designation on the way to full accreditation. Armchair Potentate 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Clubs

Alpha Omega Delta has an article. Isn't it just one of a dozen or so "literary societies" on campus? Perhaps it would be better to have one article describing all of them. They are minimally notable, and verifiable sources are very few. Further, it seems POV to have an article about only one. Though one may be older than the others, or more prestigious, to be encyclopedic it's better to give some coverage to all. -Will Beback 00:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Art Gallery

As an enthusiast of religious art, I can say with a good deal of certainty that the museum at BJU does not possess one of "largest collections of religious art in the western hemisphere." I know that this is what the museum's website claims, but it is false.

This should ostensibly stand out to browsers. How could an unaccredited, very new college like BJU possess such a collection? This statement is blatantly false.

Also, after doing some research, I could not find any evidence that corroborates the statement that BJU was accredited last year. As far as I know, the school is still unaccredited. Heyhey 06:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)heyhey

You should be aware that the works displayed in the gallery are only a fraction of the University's collection. Armchair Potentate 00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Previous Art Gallery post

Do some research about the BJU M&G; not only can I personally attest to the validity of that statement (having toured the Gallery on an occasion), but there is considerable respect online among art historians. There are paintings by very famous masters such as Veronese, Titian, Tintoretto, Benjamin West, and many more. I would not say that such a statement is "blatantly false.”

Science

It's not fair to insist that "doing research related to defending the Bible's account of creation" means publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Virtually all members of the scientific community are evolutionists. If you researched the history of fundamentalism, would it be necessary to publish at Bob Jones University Press before your research could be considered research?

John Foxe 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument is a false parallel of the rankest order. The reason scientists publish their research in refereed, peer-reviewed journals is so that their work can be critically evaluated. Last time I checked, BJU press is not a peer-reviewed journal of anything, but rather a launching pad for fundamentalist publications.

208.11.8.10 15:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Bynocerus

I agree. But no creationists can publish in peer-reviewed journals. It's not possible. Everyone knows what the stakes are, and they can't be let in. Evolutionary orthodoxy has to be maintained by the peer-reviewed journals.

Besides the BJU science faculty does not believe that creation (or evolution) can be proved scientifically because it's not reproducible. They would view both views as philosophical assumptions.

I still think it's illegitimate to complain that the BJU science faculty has not published creationist material (they've published other things, of course) when they are excluded for ideological reasons.

John Foxe 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What do we mean by "doing research" in this regard? -Will Beback 17:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Creationists are making a category error (see Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind). They see the Bible as a theory like evolution to be proved or disproved. They must disprove evolution because it because it clashes with their theory (ie the literal truth of the bible). The reason they do not get published in serious journals is they simply attempt to disprove and discredit evolution. The theory they put in place of evolution is the Bible, which is religion not science, to reiterate the point about the category mistake. Why should a scientific journal publish their theory if what they produce is based on scripture not evidence and like proper scientific theory. Religion should transcend scientific debates not attack them. If the evidence disagrees with their 'literal truth' of the bible they should question their religion or their reading of the bible not mount spurious, unscientific and ill judged attacks on evolution. Believing in creationism rather than evolution is tantamount to believing that God would try to trick you into believing in evolution with all its carefully researched theory observation and the enormous fossil record.

I removed the comments about biology graduates not being able to attend graduate school because of their degrees from BJU because it's simply false. Just because it seems logical for secular schools to discriminate against BJU biology degrees doesn't mean that they do.

The remainder of the material is POV. Anthropology is no more oriented toward evolution than biology.

John Foxe 03:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation

The accreditation of BJU is just as I've written. TRACS is "recognized by both the United States Department of Education, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, as a national accrediting body for Christian institutions, colleges, universities, and seminaries." That means if you graduate from school accredited by TRACS (or a school that has candidate status, as does BJU), your credits will be accepted by the federal government, say if you want to join the FBI or become a nurse in the Navy. However, BJU is not accredited--nor could be--by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), which is the "regional" accreditation that most people mean when they say "accreditation."

John Foxe 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Minorities at BJU

I'm not sure how you'd get a written source for the number of minorities or interracial couples at BJU. The University doesn't keep records. With no tax exemption, they don't have to. My suggestion is to walk the campus and go to the university food service. You'll hear Spanish and Korean spoken for sure and probably see some interracial couples. The in-coming student body president is a black guy from Chicago. (A curiosity: a campus supervisor had an Asian wife--a faculty member--and biracial children before the interracial dating rule was recinded in 2000.)

John Foxe 10:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"African Americans"

Although the term "African American" sounds dignified and neutral, the term is not inclusive enough. BJU discriminated against all people of African descent, including those from Africa, where many BJU graduates were serving as missionaries. As in all such discriminatory schemes, there were awkward problems about what race was about, and there were some very dark BJU students in the 1950s and '60s--just none of African descent (as least as far as anyone could tell).John Foxe 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Thanks for the clarification. Rillian 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted my comment

They thought it was offensive. It wasn't. All I was saying that I'd rather have Martin Luter over John Foxe any day. It possibly was in the wrong section and on the wrong page, but it was stridently argued not offensive.

I deleted it because it was a comment about a user, rather than about the article. Please discuss the edits, not the editors. If you do need to make a comment about a user, it's best to do so on their user talk page. -Will Beback 22:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Other Sexual Conduct

I've removed this (several times) for two reasons. 1. It's repetitve and covered under Student Rules. 2. The incident mentioned (but not cited as it is later) was basically a gimmick, a political ploy to embarrass the University as it was attempting (successfully, it turned out) to extract hospitality tax funds for the Museum & Gallery from the Greenville City Council. Now that the M&G has its tax money, nothing more has been heard from this fellow. BJU is a decent sized place. Obviously the only way in which a homosexual alumnus could be identified and removed from the campus is if he dramatically self-declared himself--like maybe wearing a rainbow t-shirt with the words "Gay and Proud/BJU Class of 1960" or some such thing. John Foxe 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The text in this section is also a direct plagiarism from this site (or rather, from the AP Wire, reproduced at this site): http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/gyhtb15.htm
-- Omicronpersei8 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM THE ONE WHO KEEPS REINSERTING THIS: I reviewed the "Student Rules" section again, and I agree that it does mention the prohibition of homosexuality, lewdness, etc., so I won't re-insert this as a separate section again. Nowhere is the school's banning of gay alumni addressed, but this is a minor point. Their position on students, faculty & staff is clear under "Student Rules" as currently written.

When I quote ONE SENTENCE from the Associated Press -- within quotation marks -- and duly attribute the quote to AP, that is not plagiarism. Ask anyone who's ever written a research paper.

Bibb Graves

I take a dim view of deliberately removing information about Graves that puts him in context. It would be like referring to Hugo Black (whom Graves knew well) as "Alabama Ku Klux Klan member, also member of the U.S. Supreme Court." And then ignoring the fact that Black was a liberal member of the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, in Cornbread and Caviar, Bob Jones, Jr. relates how his father was insulted over dinner by his mother's relatives who were embarrassed at his political support for Graves and Herbert Hoover (18-19).John Foxe 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM THE ONE WHO KEEPS MAKING THE CHANGES:

I take a dim view of writing Wikipedia entries in such a way as to "lead" or suggest to the reader what he/she should think rather than simply reporting the bare facts and letting the reader decide (or research further).

Source for the following is "Politics, Society and the Klan in Alabama: 1915-1949." by Prof. Glenn Feldman. See this link for a summary:[14]

The key issue in the Jones-Graves relationship is not Graves unspecified "progressiveness" but the fact that Jones deliberately allied himself with white supremacists. Per Feldman's book, the Alabama klan was the most violent in the country at the time of the Jones-Graves alliance and klan terror in Alabama repeatedly made NATIONAL headlines. Gotta love those progressive, liberal lynch mobs!

Bibb Graves helped Bob Jones, Sr. raise money for the start-up of Bob Jones College. At the time, Graves was Grand Dragon. Also at the same time, Jones spoke before Klan groups and accepted Klan money. Graves then ended up on the board of trustees.

The effect of "massaging" the Bibb Graves entry to downplay his role as statewide leader of the KKK and to emphasize his unspecified progressiveness is that we engage in editorializing rather than simply reporting. And Bibb Graves is not Hugo Black (or Robert Byrd, for that matter). Of those 3, guess which one never disavowed his Klan legacy?

The fact that even a special pleader like Feldman can't find any reference to Bob Jones, Sr. joining the Klan or the Klan contributing money to Bob Jones College suggests that the connection between Graves and Jones was not the Klan but their joint interest in education, prohibition, and progressivism. (Of course, we probably won't disagree that early twentieth-century southern progressivism was racist.) Here's what I've posted and what you've removed several times. I suggest that my information is fuller, more accurate, and less biased than yours:

• Bibb Graves, progressive governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39) and personal friend of Bob Jones, Sr. Although Graves was the Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan when he began his first term as governor, he was noted as a liberal reformer who emphasized improved education in Alabama. Graves served as a member of the original board of trustees of Bob Jones College, and a residence hall is named for him.[15][Dalhouse, Island in the Lake of Fire, 36]

As a more unbiased source than the personal website book review that you cite, let me quote from the Graves' entry in the Dictionary of American Biography (Supplement 3: 317-18, 1973): "A practical politician, Graves had built a large following on personal favors and friendships, rather than on ideological issues....He abolished the convict leasing system and, in keeping with a pledge made to the farmers, raised taxes on public utilities, railroads, and coal and iron companies....The new revenue thus secured was used to expand educational and public health facilities, increase teachers' salaries and veterans' pensions, fund an ambitious road-building program, construct new bridges, and improve port facilities in Mobile. Though an admitted member of the Klan, Graves, in response to mounting criticism of Klan terrorism, refused to appoint Klansmen to state positions. Yet at the same time he was dilatory in publicly condemning the organization, and he made the prosecution of its members difficult by allocating too little money for the purpose....To maintain his popularity among the farmers in northern Alabama and the working classes, Graves made good on his commitment to New Deal legislation, winning a reputation as one of the most progressive governors in the South." John Foxe 18:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN UNTO THE BREACH... First: Feldman's book was his Ph.D. thesis. Scholarly. Amply researched. Since when is a doctoral student a "special pleader"? I guess since about the same time as Grand Dragons became fairly godmothers.

Second: Your statement that Jones didn't take Klan money is not true. Both Feldman's book and the link I cited above make reference to Jones speaking before Klan groups and accepting their donations. Whether Jones was a Klan member (probably not) is a non-issue. It hasn't come up before. And to suggest that Jones was attracted to Graves because of a mutual interest in "progressivism" is absurd on its face to anyone who knows anything about the man and the school. (No blacks admitted until the 1970's; no interracial dating until 2000. And so on ad infinitum.)

Third: I take no issue with anything that Graves might have done as governor that might have been good and progressive. Truly, I can think of no better man about whom to say: "Mighty white of him!" The issue is not Graves progressivism -- and apparently I need to repeat this again -- but Jones' deliberate act of aligning himself with white supremacists.

And fourth: You cite the wording that I've repeatedly changed as if you're shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that someone would hew your spin (i.e., leading the reader towards pre-determined opinion) down to the bare facts. If you continue to spin Graves as a "progressive" and to excuse his KKK involvement as something that was just a marginal aberration, then I will continue to change your wording to read as follows: "Bibb Graves - Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan and two-term governor of Alabama (1927 - 1931 and 1935 - 1939). Served on the original board of trustees of Bob Jones College. A dormitory is named in his honor."

Fifth: On the section regarding "Homosexuality and Other Sexual Conduct" I read your critique -- objectively -- and agreed that your point was well taken. I promised not to re-enter that information and I have abided by that. I suggest that you do the same on this Bibb Graves entry, since it is neither accurate nor appropriate in an encyclopedia entry to try to marginalize Graves' leadership role in the KKK as some kind of temporary happenstance.

Sixth: Henry Kissinger said: "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." From this discussion, I would say that quote applies "in spades" to Wikipedia politics. At long last, can we say : "We come to bury Bibb Graves, not to praise him"?

For the strengths and weaknesses of Feldman's dissertation/book see the essay in Alabama Review[16] Of all special pleaders, academics are the worst.

As an evangelist, Bob Jones, Sr. certainly took Klan money, no question. But then, during the same period, so did Billy Sunday, who was from Iowa--and although many contemporaries called Sunday a number of bad things (a lot of them true), no one called him a racist. My point above was that there is no evidence that the Klan contributed money to Bob Jones College. Your definition of Graves implies that BJU's post-Brown segregationism has some connection with the KKK; but it doesn't. There's no connection no matter how much you'd like for there to be one.

It's a mistake to believe that Alabamans who opposed the Klan during the 1920s weren't racists. The reason I believe that the tie between Graves and Jones had nothing to do with race is because virtually all Alabama whites were racists in the 1920s, those who supported the Klan and those who opposed it. Graves and Jones were both prohibitionists, they were both were interested in education, and they were both progressives (in the contemporary meaning of that word). Jones was starting a college and his friend Graves was part of his network. There was no reason for ideas about race to play a part in the founding of BJC. No one could have imagined BJC being integreted in the 1920s. Race was a non-issue because racism was so widely accepted.

I'm not willing to bury Grand Dragon Bibb just yet. But let's let him rest in peace awhile, and perhaps some other Wikipedian will come up with a compromise entry that we can both live with. John Foxe 19:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've revised Foxe's summary just a bit so that both parties can be happy (hopefully). The Wikipedia entry on Graves mentions the connection with the KKK, but doesn't harp on it such as was on this BJU page. Based on this, I revised the entry by Foxe by removing the word 'progressive' since it could be confusing term itself. I also tried to present Grave's connection with the KKK to be as impartial as possible (just as the Wikipedia entry on Graves does). Jasutton 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we compromise on this wording? I've given my anonymous friend "Grand Dragon" first and dropped the word "progressive" but then made it clear that there was more to Graves than the Klan. If the Klan had been a significant factor in the origins of BJC, there should be another Klansman benefactor out there somewhere, but I've not been able to find him. As I've said, race was a non-issue in the 1920s.

Oh, and by the way, the 1920s Klan mightily scared my grandmother--an immigrant from Russian Poland--when it burned a cross across the street from her house--in New Jersey. John Foxe 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to revisit Graves once again, but I can't find any evidence that he was Alabama Grand Dragon. Someone have a source? John Foxe 18:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that Graves was the KKK Grand Dragon of Alabama. I assumed that the research had been done before I got here, and I'm disappointed to find that it had not. John Foxe 03:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual Grand Dragon of the Alabama Klan was one James Esdale. That information is found in Glenn Feldman, Politics, Society and the Klan in Alabama, 1915-1949 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1999). On p. 31, Feldman also mentions "Montgomery cyclops Bibb Graves." One further quotation from Feldman's turgid book: "Both Graves and [Hugo] Black, it should be noted, were political opportunists who used Klan strength to further their own careers and could never be mistaken for fanatics or more extreme Kluxers." (88) 129.93.207.8 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been fixed on the article, but it appears that people are still confused in talk, so the Alabama State Archives state:

Although Graves was Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan when he took office, he advocated a progressive program that included increased aid to educational and social services.

Just to pile on, the Graves Family Association says of Graves:

When elected governor in 1927, he was the Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan. This was a period when "respectable" men across the nation belonged to the Klan, including future Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black.

Neither the Alabama State Archives nor the Graves Family Association strike me as organizations with any interest in painting governor Graves in a negative light. Until someone puts specific dates on Easdale's tenure as Grand Dragon which show that Graves was never Grand Dragon, let us assume that these sources are authoritative, please? k.lee 04:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't take the family history site seriously. The Graves bio is clearly derivative; and besides it's kind of fun to have a horsethief in the family so long as he's a few generations back.

The Alabama State Archives I do take seriously, and I've written asking for their source. Here are a couple more Internet sources that make James Esdale the Grand Dragon, including one from the state of Alabama.[17][18] Esdale was Grand Dragon in 1926 when Graves ran for governor; he "retired" in 1931.

I promise not touch the Graves entry until I hear from the Alabama State Archives. John Foxe 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Alabama Department of Archives and History has now changed its biography of Graves to correct the error that referred to him as Grand Dragon of the Alabama Klan.[[19]]John Foxe 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Putting Graves' membership in the Klan first in that squib is unfair and unnecessarily radioactive. He's supposed to have left the Klan in 1928 (although since there are no records, no one can say for sure), and his Klan membership had zero to do with Bob Jones College. John Foxe 15:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH, REDUX: I'm the person who added Bibb Graves to the BJU article in the first place. (That's just FYI).

Let us cut to the chase: No one gives a hoot in hell about Bibb Graves. He has become an issue only because (1) he was a honcho in the KKK, (2) he is memorialized at BJU by a dorm named for him, and (3) this is embarrassing for the school and those associated with it.

All other objections as to sources, wording of the Bibb Graves entry, and so forth are merely red herrings. The real issue is: Neutralize Graves as an embarrassment.

I suggest that anyone who hasn't should read Wikipedia's editorial policy. It boils down to neutrality and objectivity.

After much hashing about in the recent past, a compromise was struck that lasted some weeks until a new Bibb Graves editing war broke out. That compromise admitted the KKK affiliation in six words, and then went on for another 100 or more words to stress the man's education, accomplishments, and reputation as a reformer. I thought this was neutral and objective in keeping with Wikipedia's policy.

The person who keeps changing the Graves entry is not writing a balanced entry but is rather serving the private agenda of minimizing embarrassment for BJU. The best way for BJU partisans to remove such embarrassment is to encourage their school not to do embarrassing things to begin with. Or you could just blame those of us who insist on telling the whole truth. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.71.53 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 6 July 2006

Bibb Graves was never Grand Dragon of the Alabama KKK. The anonymous editor from Monroe, Louisiana is relying on a link to Alabama Department of History and Archives website that disproves his own contention.[[20]]

Four structures and a road are named for Bibb Graves on the campuses of three Alabama state universities; none of them seem particularly embarrassed.

In a recent (and excellent) article in the Journal of American History (June 2006), “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past,” the author, Roy Rosenzweig, notes how “academics and other highly-qualified people” who were initially excited by the project were “slowly worn down and driven away by having to deal with difficult people.” (140) I refuse to be worn down and driven away. John Foxe 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>> First, I'm not from "Monroe, Louisiana." You have apparently mistaken my ISP's numeric locator for my physical location. This is not important except that it's exemplary of your other assertions and conclusions.

Second, you state point-blank that Graves was never Grand Dragon of the KKK, when Prof. Feldman's book -- which was in fact his Ph.D. dissertation and is thoroughly researched and footnoted -- documents that he was. Until recently, the Ala. State Archives website stated the same.

Further, the AP carried news of Feldman's book specifically referencing Graves' status as Grand Dragon. And your response to this documentation is, simply: "Was not"?! Ooooo-kay.

Second, the State of Alabama changed their webpage since I used it as a source. At that time, it stated "Grand Dragon." The state has dropped the Grand Dragon reference entirely. The revised page does not SUPPORT the assertion that he was Grand Dragon, but it does not DISPROVE it as you assert. Do you not know the difference between "unsupported" and "disproven," or were you just being disingenuous? There is other ample evidence. Feldman's fact-checked and footnoted book/dissertation pegs Graves as "Grand Dragon."

Third, you forgot to name all the kindergartens, water treatment plants, toll booths, and pot holes named for Bibb Graves in Alabama. Truly, they are not ashamed of him as you say. But when -- WHEN?? -- was that ever the issue here? (Did you not know that, or were you just being disingenuous again?) Just another red herring for the rubes. However, it sure seems to bother Y-O-U that (1) Graves, (2) the Klan, and (3) BJU are mentioned in the same breath. Did you really intend to illustrate my point so beautifully? Well done!

Fourth, you seem to think that anyone who dares to disagree with you is an aggressor trying to wear you down and drive you away. A perfectly good compromise had been worked out here that mentioned the KKK affiliation in 6 words and then went on in some detail to praise Graves' education and accomplishments. This was left untouched by me or anyone else for weeks. Then you unilaterally started this latest edit war by deleting the balanced entry in favor of your own. If you want to see an aggressor trying to intimidate others and drive them away, just pick up the nearest mirror. (Did you not know the fault is yours, or were you just continuing the streak of disingenuousness?)

Fifth, you failed to address the issue of balance and objectivity, which was the whole point of the post to which you have just purported to respond. Gee, I wonder why someone advocating a partisan agenda would avoid entirely the issue of editorial neutrality? (Didn't you know you were evading the issue, or...well, you know the rest.)

Sixth, I love shooting fish in a barrel. Keep feeding me the ammo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobojo (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 July 2006

This disagreement can easily be settled, Nobojo. You've declared Feldman's book to be "thoroughly researched and footnoted" and said that it "pegs Graves as Grand Dragon." Find the citation for that pegging, and I'll gladly withdraw from the fray. Start by checking "Esdale, James" in the index, and don't miss page 31, where Feldman discusses "Montgomery cyclops Bibb Graves."--John Foxe 21:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody, for discussing this issue rather than reverting each other. Please keep seeking consensus rather then unilateral solutions. -Will Beback 20:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NOBOJO SEZ: I can't believe that this has turned civil again. However, I am certainly glad to see it. As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't have to be The Great American Culture War in microcosm. Let's just get the facts straight and move on.

I've read Feldman's book , but I no longer have it. If necessary I will get it through interlibrary loan. However, there are several other websites that confirm the "Grand Dragon" status:

1) Don't take my word for what Feldman's book says -- the Associated Press told the world that Feldman's book pegs Graves as Grand Dragon. The Rick Ross website provides a verbatim transcript of the Associated Press article about Feldman's book - http://www.rickross.com/reference/kkk/kkk20.html.

2) the Graves family website (as noted previously).

4) The University of Manitoba (campus newspaper article) - http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/2002-2003/0115/features_1.shtml

5)And for at least 6 years -- in fact, until JUST THIS MONTH! -- the Ala. State Archives confirmed that Graves was Grand Dragon. As you may know, you can view webpages as they *USED TO APPEAR* (versus how they currently appear) by using the "Internet Wayback Machine" at http://www.archive.org/index.php. I used the Wayback Machine to view the Alabama State Archives' past page history on Bibb Graves. Going back 6+ years -- which is the length of time I've been citing that page as a source -- the State of Alabama has *consistently* confirmed that Bibb Graves was Grand Dragon of the Ala. KKK. Only recently -- coinciding with the protests of BJU partisans here at Wikipedia -- has Alabama seen fit to alter a page that they had left unchanged for 6+ years. How's that for a coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.169.83 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 July 2006

I'm glad to see that we now disagree about only one thing: whether Bibb Graves was Grand Dragon (leader of the state organization) of the Alabama KKK or whether he was Exalted Cyclops (chapter president) of the Montgomery branch.

1. The Rick Ross website says nothing about Graves being Grand Dragon.

2. You boasted that Feldman, a scholarly work, "pegs Bibb Graves as Grand Dragon." All you need is a citation from Feldman, and I'll back off. We need scholarly opinion here not that of an amateur who runs a genealogy website or a college newspaper from Manitoba. A recent scholarly journal article, Samuel L. Webb, “Hugo Black, Bibb Graves, and the Ku Klux Klan: A Revisionist View of the 1926 Alabama Democratic Primary” Alabama Review (October 2004) correctly names James Esdale as Grand Dragon and Bibb Graves as “Grand [sic] Cyclops” on its first page. The whole article's on line.[21]

3. It's no coincidence that the Alabama Department of Archives and History changed their website. I presented the evidence that Graves was never Grand Dragon, and the folks at the ADAH changed their biography. I’m sure if you can present counter-evidence they'll change it back.

It took me several weeks to check the evidence through the paper sources, and during that time I let "Grand Dragon" stand on the BJU page. Please be courteous enough to let "Exalted Cyclops" stand until you have scholarly evidence that Graves was Grand Dragon.

--John Foxe 13:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are correct that the Rick Ross site does not mention Grand Dragon. It cites Feldman's book as a link between Bob Jones, Sr. and the KKK, but doesn't get mention Graves. My mistake.

I'm about to agree with what you just offered above, but first I must say this:

All of Wikipedia is an "amateur" site. Yet is is used by millions for research and reference. It is not up to any one of us to decree that a Wikipedia source must be "scholarly" in order to be accepted as credible evidence. For example, many sources linked on Wikipedia are to newspaper articles, business and government websites, and -- YES! -- to private "amateur" websites. None of these are "scholarly."

It is not up to any one of us to decree that a private, amateur-run site (such as the Graves family site) is unacceptable as a source simply BECAUSE it is not "scholarly." Therefore, if this dispute continues in spite of what I'm about to propose, I fully reserve the right to peg Graves as "Grand Dragon" and to use the Graves family site and/or Feldman's book as a source.

Now to settle this: It's fine with me to peg Graves as Exalted Cyclops (or Magnificent Mongoloid or Pampered Poodle) **AS LONG AS** we revert to the language of the previously-adopted compromise. As in...

Bibb Graves - Exalted Cyclops of the Montgomery (or wherever) Ku Klux Klan and two-term governor, etc. Graves was a graduate of, etc. He earned a reputation as a reformer, etc. Graves served as a member of the board, etc.

What I specifically object to is this:

Bibb Graves -- although he was Exalted Cyclops, etc.

Take a look at other Wikipedia entries. None of them begin by trying to explain away or apologize for a man's actions before any facts have been given about that man. It's just not good form and that's why it bothers me to see it presented that way.

So if we can go back to the compromise language and peg Graves as Exalted Cyclops, then as far as I'm concerned, this will be settled.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.164.102 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 July 2006

I'd be willing to compromise so long as "two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39)" comes first. Any biographical dictionary or encyclopedia entry on Graves should begin there, just as any entry for "Richard Nixon" should begin with "thirty-seventh president of the United States."

Also, I'd like (but won't insist on)an apology for the following statement: "You state point-blank that Graves was never Grand Dragon of the KKK, when Prof. Feldman's book -- which was in fact his Ph.D. dissertation and is thoroughly researched and footnoted -- documents that he was."

Why don't you ever sign your comments? John Foxe 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't usually (as opposed to "ever") sign my comments for any reason that you would care to believe.

I've made an eminently fair offer to settle this: I accept your research and wording on the "Exalted Cyclops" issue, while you agree that the rest of the entry will revert to the exact language (and format) that was in effect before you started this latest edit war.

If you are not interested in compromising on those terms, I'm sorry. But I'm not surprised. (For anyone not personally acquainted with BJU: Compromise -- especially with a reprobate like me -- is the unpardonable sin.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.82.62 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 12 July 2006

Frankly, I don't care whether you're a reprobate, a pedestrian, or a Martian. --John Foxe 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How about a Grand Dragon? I've noticed that that topic holds some interest for you.

To summarize this entire dispute in one paragraph: You started this latest edit war by deleting a carefully negotiated, neutral entry. You presented research which you demanded to be accepted. It was accepted, provided that you allow the entry to return to its previous neutral format. You refused and insisted that the entry be written on your terms. When your position is my-way-or-the-highway, there's no point in further discussion. I am through posting here. I remain open to accepting your research on the condition that the entry retain its original format and wording. Until then, I see no reason to accept your research when I have contradictory sources.

Anyone who has anything CONSTRUCTIVE to say to me on this issue can contact me at admin(at)online.zzn.com. Aside from that, I see no point in continuing this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.152.175 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 13 July 2006

The “carefully negotiated neutral entry” was based on mutual error—that Bibb Graves was Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan. It’s perfectly understandable that both you and I first believed that information to be true because it was included in the Graves biography on the website of the Alabama Department of Archives and History. And frankly, I also trusted you because you came to this site before me.

Nevertheless, library research has demonstrated that Graves never held the office of Grand Dragon. When I brought that information to the attention of the ADAH, it changed its biography of Graves.

Now, you say that while you will continue to post that Graves was Grand Dragon, you “remain open to accepting” my research “on the condition that the entry retain its original format and wording.” Therefore one of two things is true: (1.) You don’t believe Graves to have been Grand Dragon but are willing to post an error on Wikipedia in an attempt to preserve your own “format and wording” or (2.) that if I agree to your terms, you are then willing to post an error on Wikipedia to preserve your own format and wording. In other words, truth and error are fungible so long as you have your way. No man of integrity would propose such an agreement or accede to such.

Nevertheless, I am heartened by your promise not to post here again.

--John Foxe 18:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't have you heartened. Expecially when you're dishing out false statements right and left.

1) FIRST FALSE STATEMENT: You said that the original compromise language was based on error (i.e., "Grand Dragon"). However, you know full well that the FORMAT was not based on error. I agreed to accept your revision of Graves' klan title. I asked you to let the remainder of the entry revert back to the compromise language. -- which is NOT based on error, Mr. Integrity Man.

SECOND FALSE STATEMENT: You said that I'm willing to post false information on Wikipedia to preserve **MY** wording and format. Two lies in one sentence! Amazing! First, it's not **MY** wording, Mr. Honesty Person. It's the compromise wording. Second, **YOU**, O Great Lord of the Truth, are the one insisting on your own wording. Third, your sources are primary sources. Mine are secondary sources. I can defer to primary sources, or I can use secondary sources where there is a bona fide dispute. As I've told you before (and once again for the slow learners), disagreeing with you is not a federal offense.

THIRD FALSE STATEMENT: Alternatively, you said that "truth is fungible as long as you have your way." Amazing! Two lies in one sentence again: It's not "my way," it's the original compromise wording that YOU destroyed. And it is YOU who are insisting the everything -- EVERYTHING! -- be done your way.

Gee, you'd think that moral rectitude of yours would kind of put a damper on all this mendacity and blaming of others for your own intransigence. Guess not.

And, finally, Mr. Language Person, truth **IS** fungible. "The cat has four legs" is interchangable with "The cat is a quadriped." Both are truth. Both mean the same thing. Both truths are fungible.

As are lies. But then you've demonstrated your superior knowledge of that fact already.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.137.185 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 July 2006

Protected

Please work out your differences on this page. -Will Beback 22:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. Just tell me how to work out differences with someone who refuses to negotiate. As soon as that's revealed, I'll get started immediately! Meanwhile, your page protection has preserved the unilateral changes that you advised him not to make. (I have no quarrel with you. I'm just saying.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.165.223 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 July 2006

It would really help the discussion if you'd register a username. -Will Beback 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarified everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noboj (talk • contribs) 00:36, 15 July 2006

Is there sufficient agreement that we can unprotect the page? If not, please find a consensus. If that isn't possible on your own, then see Wikipedia:dispute resolution. -Will Beback 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly seems so to me. --John Foxe 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested

Fair notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobojo (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 July 2006

Please add a link to the arbitration request page. Thanks Rillian 13:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.169.147 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 15 July 2006

And Now For Something Completely Different

Before the abitrator weighs in, I have this to say to John Foxe and this is my final post here:

1) This argument got needlessly out of hand, and I'm sorry for my part in that. This issue is far too trivial to have come to this.

2) I apologize for attacking you personally. After you accused me of trying to drive you away, I decided to draw blood too. That was foolish.

3) I think your research on the Cyclops vs. Dragon issue is pretty conclusive. You sold me. (And the Alabama state archives.)

4) In your response to the arbitration, you made an excellent argument as to why "two-term governor" should come before "Exalted Cyclops." Nixon, you said, would be noted as a two-term president before any mention of Watergate conspirator. Damned good point. I still think the neutral compromise language should prevail with the KKK info coming first, but your argument is very compelling.

5) As a debater you are a worthy opponent and not a lightweight.

6) I imagine that your position during this dispute stems from the fact that you are trying to protect the school from attacks from people with a grudge. I respect that, although I disagree with you and think the school deserves to be haunted by Grand Dragons and such.

7) Finally, I apologize if I, an agnostic, have offended you in this post by behaving in a Christian manner. But somebody had to do it! (That's just to needle you a little bit, not to insult you. I meant everything I said above.)

8) AND I'M GOING TO SIGN THE DAMN POST!! -- NOBOJO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.145.154 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 July 2006

I appreciate your comments, Nobojo, and certainly accept your apology. There are few things more satisfying than having someone say, “You know, you’ve made a decent point there.”

Fear not, BJU will continue to be “haunted by Grand Dragons and such” well into the future--not the literal KKK sort, but the fallout from nearly four decades of decisions the Joneses made about racial policy between the time local segregation laws were ruled unconstitutional in Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963) and the abandonment of the "no inter-racial dating" rule in 2000.

--John Foxe 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Notablility

• Edward M. Panosian (b. 1930), taught the required History of Civilization course to generations of BJU students, perhaps more than half of all who ever attended the University.

Why is this person considered notable? The lists of notable faculty alumni, etc have grown quite long, and the claims of notability are increasingly dubious. The general standard of notability on Wikipedia is having an article. I'm sure that some folks without articles should have them. Howver those without articles, or who do not qualify for an article, should be removed. -Will Beback 05:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and he has been removed. John Foxe 00:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Political controversy section

Paragraph 2, sentence 1 seems out of place, although perhaps it has more significance to Southerners: "Almost from the inception of Bob Jones College, a majority of students and faculty were northerners." Either way, it doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph - unless the Republican shift was influenced by northerners? I think it would be better with something to the effect of "BJU was involved with the shifting allegiances between Democrats and Republicans in the south during the 1960s" but I left the current sentence in case I'm missing something. Moulder 04:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the majority of the BJU student body and especially the faculty were not southerners, they tended to be Republicans in the 1950s and early '60s when South Carolina was solidly Democratic. When Republicans came to be more than a curiousity in Greenville during the 1960s, it was easy for BJU staff members to take positions of responsibility in organizing the local party. So, yes, the shift to the Republican party in Greenville was eased by the large number of "Yankees" (mostly midwesterners, actually) at BJU. John Foxe 10:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

"BJU" redirects here, but it may also refer to the British Journal of Urology. [22] - Stormwatch 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice, however, that the official name of the journal is British Journal of Urology International and its web address is bjui.org. Perhaps only a urologist could tell us for sure whether there is true ambiguity here. --John Foxe 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)