Talk:Bob Jones University/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rules

The argument that the school is "famous for rules" is subjective when it has been made famous for many other reasons as well. It is no more notable than the fact that any other school doesn't have these rules in place. The placement of the rules can serve no purpose for an encyclopedic article other than to ridicule the school for its stands. Perhaps if all colleges had a rules section, this might be relevant, but in context with other schools, its simply a matter to be found on the school's website which is already linked. - Sleepnomore 06:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The rules are certainly more famous than some little movie in which it was mentioned in passing. They are an objective fact. If they reflects badly in the school that is no reason not to include them. And yes, other articles on schools with unusual rules list them, Pensacola Christian College, for example. So unless these rules are wrong, I think they are apporpriate in order to fully describe BJU. -Willmcw 06:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
They are certainly information about the school, and information that is easily gleaned from the school's own website which is already linked. You've mentioned one other school which also happens to be a religions institution. The rules don't reflect badly on the school, but certainly appear in the context of this article as though they should. I'm not against a mention about the rules themselves and stating that they are controversial as long as it keeps a Neutral Point of View, but certainly in their current form, they are not. As far as a "mention" in a little movie, your remark obviously indicates you haven't watched the movie. The entire plot is slathered with "Bob Jones University" and is the only reason I mention it. There are other movies which have mentioned the school which I have not listed because they are, in fact, only mentioned in passing. - Sleepnomore 06:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
They're stating the rules as they are, which is pretty neutral. It's one of the reasons why BJU is fairly unique, and one of the more interesting things about the place. Now that the race stuff is gone, I don't think the rules necessarily even make the place look bad. Ambi 06:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I've brought back the recent archive, since we're talking about the rules again. Could Sleepnomore propose some NPOV manner of covering the rules? Thanks, -Willmcw 07:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that I'm qualified or capable of writing the neutral version of this section. I know NPOV when I see it, but its rare to find it on Wikipedia anyway. You are free to take a whack at it of course. My main objection would be to listing the rules outright as they already exist on the linked home page and really don't serve a purpose here. If they did serve a purpose, we would find rules listed on every university page. The fact that Christian universities have been singled out to have their rules listed isn't suprising to find on Wikipedia, but certainly can be done in a better way, in my opinion. As far as the archives of the discussion go, We have stuff dating back to 2001 in here and you don't consider that archivable material? I have a habit of trying to keep article talk pages clean. These discussions really aren't relevant any longer since all decisions made have been accepted without major argument. - Sleepnomore 07:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Unusual rules of different schools are mentioned in their articles. For example, the Hampshire College article goes into great detail about how the curriculum is arranged. Spence School mentions an unusual security system, The Thacher School requires students to keep and ride a horse for one year, and so on. These are things that make schools and colleges interesting. As for saying, "it already exists on the linked home page", that's wrong for two reasons. 1) Much of the info we have, such as their history, their president's name, their locaiton, etc, is avaialble on their website. That doens't matter. We should include all important information in this article and not send readers elsewhere. 2) They don't post their rules on their home page. In fact, I couldn't find them in a quick search. Are they easily acessible? -Willmcw 08:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
And yet none of these schools mentions their rules. Hampshire college describes itself as experimental and has a reason, therefor, to describe its experimental curriculum. Spence School lists no large list of rules. Thacher School mentions that they are known for their equestrian program and therefor mentions one requirement... not a detailed list of rules. In context, yet again, it would appear that religious schools are singled out to have their rules listed as though it were some sort of specticle. This is purely POV-slanted toward those who think these rules are strange. Once again, I'm open to a section about the rules being viewed this way, but a detailed list has no place in this article. - Sleepnomore 22:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Then fix those articles. I don't see the rules as strange (well, unusual, but not strange in a bad way). They are a large part of why BJU is known, and one of the most interesting things about it - and again, I don't say that in a bad way. Ambi 05:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Those articles mention the parts of their subjects which make them unique. BJU's rules, while similar to a couple of other colleges, are dramaticlaly different from those of other colleges. If you would like to re-write the section to reduce what you say is POV, then please do so, but don't simply delete the material with nothing to replace it. -Willmcw 22:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

You pointed to Pensacola Christian College and several other colleges having similar rules. Therefor, this doesn't make the college unique. Instead, it makes it like any other religious institution. The argument that it makes the article NPOV falls on its face when considering, once again, that only religious institutions somehow deserve the right to have their "rules" detailed to great length. I have stated before that I could not write a rules section but was willing for you to do the same. That offer is still open. - Sleepnomore 00:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
BJU's rules are not the same as PCC's, so they are each unique, though similar. They are not like "any other religious insitution", though if you have supporting eveidence for that I'd be interested. Perhaps we should add more rules to more colleges to clarify the differences between them. As said I before, institutions of all types have their unusual rules mentioned in their articles, so it's isn't picking on religious schools. I'm glad you're willing to let me write NPOV material, but I still don't see why simply listing some of their unusual rules is POV. -Willmcw 01:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
You, yourself have just stated the very reason. You called them unusual rules and it shows a strict bias. It is no more unusual that BJU has these rules than it is unusual that Ohio State University doesn't. Each school has their own rules. To those of us looking from the outside of BJU in, the rules may seem out of the ordinary. But to those from inside BJU looking out, the fact that other schools don't have these rules is strange. That's what makes only listing the rules for religious institutions POV. - Sleepnomore 01:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You mentioned the school with equestrian curriculum as an instance of "uniqueness" and being required to keep a horse at the school is certainly unique -- but they still don't have their handbook cut and pasted in the page as though they should be rediculed for them. The types of restrictions that BJU has at their institution are very common in religious schools and aren't material facts in and of themselves. - Sleepnomore 01:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention the rules, but there's no reason to copy the entire list of rules from the student handbook. It's of zero interest to most readers. I removed the exhaustive list of rules. Rhobite 03:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Who gives you the right to speak for most readers? It is the most interesting thing in this article. I've reverted. If there are concerns about NPOV, I would be entirely happy for a paragraph or so for a paragraph to explain why the school believes in them. I was just reading this article, in which the president expresses concern that the rules were being interpreted out of context, and I think that's a fair concern. There's a good explanation on that page which would provide a decent basis for an explanatory paragraph. Ambi 05:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Bob Jones has been both complimented and criticized for the rules imposed upon entering students.

Are we thinking of any particular compliments or criticisms? I'd like to read these compliments. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well , as I said once before, and I'll say again, I've invited you to write an npov section and all requests have been ignored. If you think it needs rewritten, do so instead of complaining. If you are trying to make a point, I would only suggest that the old version of this article ONLY pointed to the criticism. I've mentioned both the criticism and the compliments on the rules to leave it neutral. You can find instances of both by doing a search for "Bob Jones University" and "rules" on your favorite search engine. - Sleepnomore 03:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
If you really want to read criticism and praise of the rules, you can hit the forums at: http://fcnforums.christianity.com/Bob_Jones_University/m_391404/tm.htm. Alternatively, you could most likely walk into any fundamentalist, bible-thumping, baptist church in the united states and find any number of people who like the school's rules. - Sleepnomore 04:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
We usually don't consider forums to be reliable sources. Asking in a church would certainly count as original research. I think we should remove the sentence. -Willmcw 04:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
It's kind of a useless sentence, but seeing as both points seem to be proven on this page, it seems entirely obvious and a little odd to remove it on the grounds of original research. Ambi 05:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"Usually" is a dubious word. Wikipedia:Verifiability states:
Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog ("blog") or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. One compromise would be to do just that. Since this is obviously an important point for you to keep information about the rules listed, the only way to make it NPOV would be to include the idea that there is in fact praise and support of the rules. An additional "blog" of interest is: [1]. It would seem almost impossible that a liberal voice from a major news source would provide a quotable praise of the rules at Bob Jones University. However, its quite obvious on its face that at least the majority of students who attend a second semeter at the school are in favor of the rules or they wouldn't reenter the second semester. - Sleepnomore 05:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Only if we remove the sentance about criticism, which would once again take out the rules section entirely. If you are willing to concede losing the rules section, I'm willing to remove praise. - Sleepnomore 05:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind adding praise as long as it's specific. As for the rules, I think they are important contributions to knowledge, in part because BJU, like PCC, is known for not revealing their full list of rules until the student sets foot on campus in the fall. However, large amounts of raw material does not belong properly in a Wikipedia. It properly belongs in Wikisource. Our material here should more compactly summarize the verifiable sources, including a summary of the rules themselves. How does that sound? PS: I added a chunk of text I researched and composed while the pages was going back and forth. -Willmcw 06:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I see no need to send them to Wikisource either - they make quite a contribution to this article inline, and I don't see the need to "say it all in our own words". That chunk of text, by the way, was really quite biased against the rules, and makes the whole section look bad. Ambi 06:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
(Still working on it, finding sources.) -Willmcw 06:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
OK, done. Edit mercilessly. Willmcw 08:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Will - a problem that we ran into at Talk:Pensacola Christian College was that if we tried to summarize the rules rather than listing them verbatim, there would be POV concerns. Giving the rules verbatim is about as NPOV as we can get, considering the kinds of rules we're dealing with. That said, I'd certainly favor keeping the whole "Rules for Students" section, and the point also raised on this page about the rules coming up in national news frequently just further reinforces the fact that the rules should be here for the article to be complete. --Idont Havaname 02:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional Sources

I think they should both stay. The school has many who praise it, just as it has many who oppose it. And it has particularly interesting rules (which differ from other religious institutions - I think PCC would scare me, but I don't have much issue with BJU). Ambi 05:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Also:
-Willmcw 06:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

And:

So you guys really think the article needs a huge list of rules? I don't think that belongs in an encyclopedia article, even if the rules are unusual. We can list certain rules, such as the prohibition of Abercrombie and Fitch clothing. Rhobite 05:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, we should just cut and paste the entire BJU site on here. Evidently anything that is perceived by one person is considered relevant in an article. Its all relevant now so we should have it all listed. Someone care to start archiving the content over here for us? - Sleepnomore 06:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Its impossible for some people to concede a neutral point of view. The rule list is inappropriate and awkward in this context. I've had no choice but to add NPOV warnings on the page and section in question. This section is now HIGHLY pov with the recent edits -- no opposing viewpoints are represented and the list of rules are out of context. - Sleepnomore 06:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
The rule list is perfectly appropriate, and I see absolutely no justification for removing it. The introductory paragraph, on the other hand, now has severe problems. I removed the line about their rules being widely criticised, and someone went and wrote three paragraphs about how they were criticised, without any balance. That is POV. The rules themselves, however, are NPOV. You said it yourself, and I agree - no opposing viewpoints are represented and the list of rules are out of context - so add opposing viewpoints and add contest, rather than consistently removing them altogether. Ambi 06:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I would agree but the existence of the rules themselves in this article is POV. Other than christian universities, other schools don't have their handbook pasted into the article. That makes this universities regulations seem "strange" and stand out -- again a POV. As mentioned before, this may seem "strange" or interesting to us , but the fact that other schools don't have rules is strange and interesting to them. These are two different view points that cannot be expressed without adding rules to every single school -- or at least the majority of them. The rules don't deserve inclusion. - Sleepnomore 06:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
That is a false dichotomy. There is a third option; leaving them in the articles which do have somewhat unique rules. They are demonstratably rare - the vast majority of universities don't have these rules, without us making any value judgement on the matter. Thus they are notable, and deserving of being in any encyclopedia article about them. Ambi 06:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Stating something is false or making a claim doesn't make it so. You and I could argue about this all day, but I have a feeling we will get no where. You will be unhappy without the rules, I'll be unhappy with the rules listed. Its an edit war stalemate - hence the NPOV statements on the page will have to remain indefinitely. - Sleepnomore 06:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The rules are famous:

  • Pait is explaining the famous dating rules...[3]
  • "New leaders rethink Bob Jones' rules" [4]

BJU is not like other colleges. Their rules are called famous, and are the topic of wire stories. -Willmcw 06:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that some of their rules have become famous -- in large part because of the former interratial dating rule that was featured prominently in the election. What I am disputing is that the listing of rules is relevant. It is fine to mention the rules and state that they are criticised, as the article currently reads, but placing the rules out of context with a mix of criticism from various sources is extreme POV. You should simply allow these rules to be linked. If someone really wants to read them, they are more than capable of clicking on the link to the rules. - Sleepnomore 23:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I also agree that placing the rules out of context amidst a bunch of criticism is not NPOV, but the solution to that is to remove the bunch of POV criticism, not the rules themselves. The more recent version - where nothing is said about the rules except that they're controversial with POV statements from both sides was a) less informative, and b) less neutral, than just showing the rules themselves without editorial interpretation. I don't dispute that the majority of students at BJU most probably don't have a problem with them. I suspect I wouldn't either. But what we should be doing is adding the context - and then letting people making up their own minds. Ambi 04:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

I noticed that you archived the talk page at Talk:Bob Jones University by doing a page move. The problem with that procedure is that it moves the history too, so there's no longer one continuous history. Often times the history list is the easiest way of finding a particular past comment, so splitting it makes that much more difficult. Also, if the link were deleted somehow then the archive would disappear. The usual method of creating a link, then following it to create an article, is an extra step but it's worth it. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

PS: you speed-archived this on your talk page before responding. -Willmcw 09:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I would simply remind you that there are no fixed rules about archiving discussions on Wikipedia. Certain extremely busy pages like Village Pump eventually evolve their own archiving strategy. - Reference: Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page"
It first says, "(Note: Using the "Move this page" feature for such an operation is not at all advised.)". Thanks, -Willmcw 03:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Not advised, but not prohibited. - Sleepnomore 03:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This info only exists in googles catche

The peculiar case of Bob Jones University

Erin Bockstael

Bob Jones University is proud of its reputation as “the world’s most unusual university.” Located in Greenville, South Carolina, the school has a 225-acre campus, fenced with wrought iron and barbed wire. The school provides education from kindergarten through to graduate school. The school was founded in 1927 by Bob Jones, Sr., a “fundamentalist evangelist.” In 1960, Bob Jones Sr. claimed that “God is the author of [racial] segregation,” and that if you are against it, “then you are against God Almighty.” The school has denounced Catholicism and Mormonism as “cults.” The school has a huge stockpile of weapons and ammunition, including machine guns, M-16s, shotguns and handguns. One of the school’s dormitories is named after David Bibb Graves, former governor of Alabama and Grand Dragon of the Alabama chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. The school prides itself on being like parents to its students, with strict dress codes and chaperoned dates. Students are not permitted to hold hands. Students may only listen to classical music, and a few approved Christian artists.

Some interesting milestones:

1971 — Married black couples are now permitted to attend BJU. 1975 — Single black people are now accorded the same privilege. 1990 — Women are no longer required to wear hats to church services. However, women must wear skirts that come below the knee with stockings to class and most non-sport school activities. Hairstyles for women are “expected to be feminine ... not any sort of military or buzz cut.” February 2000 — George W. Bush speaks at Bob Jones University and is blasted by critics for refusing to criticize the interracial dating ban. March 2000 — BJU lifts its ban on interracial dating, put in place in 1950 to deal with an Asian–Caucasian couple. This also opens the doors for prospective students in interracial marriages.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_9neLMJHkXUJ:www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban/20030115/features_1.shtml+%22bob+jones%22+bju+%22machine+guns%22+kkk&hl=en

NPOV Tag

It's a good idea when adding a NPOV tag to add a section to Talk outlining why you are flagging the article as lacking NPOV.--Isotope23 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Read further up the talk page. Ambi 17:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
He makes a valid observation. While the complaints are listed above, I should have done due dilligence and added a summary of my complaints here. I will do this tonight when I have more time. - Sleepnomore 19:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has been removed. Displaying some of Bob Jones' rules is not a POV move. Since the school DOES have those rules, and they are VERY unique to BJU, it is important that Wikipedia provides that information. Thank you for choosing to not vandalize this page in the future. Iamblueman4 06:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag needs to remain while the item is in dispute. It is inappropriate for you to remove this tag. If you want the tag remove, I suggest you help find a compromise that makes everyone feel the article is neutral. I've given on my end by allowing some information about the rules to be included in the article. My previous stance is that a section on the rules doesn't belong at all (aside from what is already mentioned about the history of rules and already exists in the article). However, in the interest of making the article neutral, and giving to the other side , I've conceded that it wouldn't be completely inappropriate to mention that the rules are hated by some and loved by others. Furthermore, your personal attacks in the edit notes (or anywhere) are not allowed on Wikipedia. I ask that you keep the focus on the article, and not on each other or this will get ugly as -- as it often does on Wikipedia. - Sleepnomore 08:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Since Sleepnomore is claiming the rules are out of context, I think it is worth saying that one of my very close friends attends this school and has mentioned many of these rules. I found it interesting that his roommate was banned from talking to someone of the opposite sex for weeks because he accumulated 75 demerits. He then got in trouble when he held his girlfriend's hand when they were bowling (under the "supervision" of a chapparone of course...). I have many other friends from church that attend this school, those rules definetly do exist. I think Sleepnomore needs to stop making his personal opinion about displaying the school's rules (which do make some people look negatively at the school) dictate whether they belong on the page. If Bob Jones University feels the rules belong on their personal webpage (which they are), then what shame is there in making them available on Wikipedia? If these are taken out of context, than the school took them out of context...which I HIGHLY doubt. Please read this before you decide to make a biased edit again. Thanks! Iamblueman4 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Like PCC, BJU does not let future students see the "student handbook", which contains the full set of rules, until they are on campus to start classes. Thus, this type of information is not readily available. It isn't bad or good that they have these rules, but it is notable. When is listing facts POV? -Willmcw 07:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I love how my edits are considered biased whereas your as educated. Your personal attacks of this nature are not welcome. Stating that you know someone who went to BJU who had a problem with the rules makes you a highly POV editor and for that very reason you should recuse yourself from this argument. These are taken out of context because, as I have to continually state here, they are only mentioned in the realm of Christian universities. No comprehensive list of rules exists in any other school, adn as well they shouldn't. As I've stated before, the fact that the rules are there does seem strange to those looking at the school from the outside. Not having rules like this at other schools seems very strange to those looking from inside the school. That being said, the rules being of importance -- particularly a comprehensive list of them -- is a matter of your personal point of view -- read POV. Christian universities in general have strange rules and that is nothing unusual for a Christian university any more than it is for a christian high school. It should be noted that even West Point doesn't have a comprehsive list of their rules on their page -- despite having many. Reason? Because its not unusual for military universities to have rules. Its assumed that they do. I have conceded that some rules, such as the Abercrombie and Fitch rule, may have some relevance and may be worth a mention, but by no means are the rules something that is noteworthy in context. - Sleepnomore 08:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The rules are noteworthy in context. You've been shown news stories describing them as famous. You've been shown wire entries referring to changes in them. And you've seen a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence backing that up. If we remove the text, then we're going to get a POV mess of "he-said-she-said" nonsense about people's thoughts on the rules. Whereas if we let them stay, then people can make up their own mind - I must say, I have a better opinion of BJU from reading the rules themselves than I would from reading what some opinionated journo has to say. Ambi 08:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
See also: Ratline (tradition), an entire article (pending merger) about the rules for freshman at Virginia Military Institute. -Willmcw 09:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
This actually proves my point. The Ratline article actually describes the process without listing a set of rules such as you have done here. I still don't see a set of rules for VMI. It provides insight to the school without taking rules out of context such as you have done here. I've now been accused of being a "Christian fundamental" simply because I defend the neutrality of the article. This has degraded into personal attacks and it should not be so. I'm editing in good faith. While I have tried to assume good faith with everyone here, removal of the NPOV tag is an obvious bad-faith action and could be construed as vandalism. I ask that it be replaced until we have come to concensus on this article. I also ask your permission to request others join this discussion. I want this article to be neutral and I will continue to fight for that neutrality. - Sleepnomore 20:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag does not belong. If you feel the intro is biased, you can rewrite it or add some countering sentences. However, the rules are relevant because it describes the experiences of students (clearly important) and just by the fact that they're very rare. I myself found this article very interesting because of the detailed rules. Having them down verbatim keeps the POV neutral, and it describes the religious nature of the school in a non-biased way. Euphrosyne 18:09:03, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

NPOV tag does belong. I have made attempts to revise the article in a fair way and compromise, but haven't been able to do that. I'm certain the opposing view firmly believes what they are writing, but I also firmly believe that my edits are valid. Since neither side can agree, the NPOV tag is appropriate. The rules do NOT represent the student experience. Believe it or not, the majority of those at BJU don't look at the rules as restrictive or even notice them on a daily basis. Having the rules here verbatim in itself is a highly POV move. Having them accompanied with multiple criticisms makes the section absurd and places the article completely out of balance. - Sleepnomore 18:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's not about whether the students find the rules restrictive. It's about how most people would view those rules, because the majority of people don't go to schools that have rules that strict. To these people (who we could consider impartial observers), the rules are of interest because they are so different. It's not a judgement on the school to quote verbatim from their offical sources, especially if it reflects strongly on the culture. Euphrosyne 19:45:31, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
To quote the rules out of context as this article does does violate NPOV. To place them in context of criticism by others certainly violates the rules of NPOV. Furthermore, your continued removal of the NPOV tag is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I ask that you work within the process until we form a concensus. I ask that you add the NPOV tag back and stop engaging in edit wars over the dispute over neutrality. I"ve done my best to be patient and work with all the editors. I have not engaged in personal attacks yet I've received them by both you and Iamblueman4. This is unacceptable behavior and I urge you to kindly change it and work within this process. - Sleepnomore 20:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
What kind of context do you think the rules need? We've added a discussion of them, using a variety of sourced POVs, some critical and some favorable. -Willmcw 20:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Your variety included only criticism with the exception of the fact that BJU administration stated they thought their rules were good. I think they need the context of either the entire handbook, or the website, such as I've added now. I've put the link to the site so they can be viewed in context. If you truly feel someone should be able to make a judgement for themselves based on the rules, then you shouldn't have a problem with letting the reader view them on their own website. - Sleepnomore 22:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
All of the rules aren't at that link. -Willmcw 22:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  1. 1 How would you know without a copy of the handbook and #2 Site your source for the missing rules. - Sleepnomore 23:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not use forums, such as StudentsReview.com, as a source. They are not considered reliable sources. -Willmcw 22:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The statements from StudentsReview.com are not in forums. They are in the survey results. Those are reliable sources. The fact that a site may also have forums doesn't disqualify a site as inappropriate for use. - Sleepnomore 22:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Web surveys are never reliable, especially ones that only get eight respondents. -Willmcw 06:44, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
In a sense, that's all this Wikipedia talk discussion is -- a web survey of what page editors feel belongs here. So in that sense, you may be right that those aren't reliable. Short of that, if this internal web survey on these pages can make the article lean negatively, it should be balanced with another survey that helps provide a neutral position. The undergraduate total is 121 undergrad respondants -- thats enough votes to get poll estimates for an election so it should be good enough to get the feeling of students on campus. Admittedly, the Graduate school survey only has 8 respondants which by itself wouldn't have been useful. Coupled with the undergrad results I think its simply bolstering the other results. - Sleepnomore
It wouldn't matter if it had 8,000 respondents. Websurveys are meaningless. -Willmcw 19:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Jones_University/Archive_2&oldid=252719664"