Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Home Health Care Program
I just received an email from the Dean of the School of Nursing and she said the home health care nursing program wasn't terminated as the cited article stated. It was just moved to the Mary Walker Towers (another housing complex). I have no sources other than her email. She also stated that article had many inaccuracies. Any suggestions for what to dow with that line under "Recent Events"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixar (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- We go under verifiability in reliable sources, ask her to publish her response in a verifiable forum which we can source. We don't write based on what's true, we write based on what reliable sources say. BelloWello (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- If we go by verifiability then BelloWello (talk) has violated that stipulation by not reading what the source actually says. Here's a quote from the source, a short news clip. "The program may not be completely dead, though. The Dean of the school is thinking of moving the program to Mary Walker Towers, where the environment is more controlled and the students can be safer." To me this latest update corroborates what the source says. Fountainviewkid 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- "A local college puts the brakes on a home health program after some of its nursing students are accosted." is also in that article. I would not have a problem with changing the word "terminated" to "discontinue" to reflect the source better. As for Mary Walker Towers, we do not have a source for it having moved and until there is a source that it has moved, there is no reason to include it. An email is irrelevant. BelloWello (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- And where is the word discontinue found? All the evidence states that this is likely to be temporary via the source. I say change it to "temporarily suspended". As for Mary Walker Towers, the article notes that this is likely to be the case. It may be good to add this into the line as well by saying something like "however there are still plans to continue it possible at Mary Walker Towers". Fountainviewkid 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was discontinued. "The program may not be completely dead, though." does not provide license to say it was temporarily suspended, it says the program ended but may be resurrected. As such, we should simply state that it was "discontinued," "ended," "interrupted," etc. It should not state that it was a temporary end, since the source doesn't explicitly say that, instead it hinted at the possibility. I would be okay with saying "Southern ended its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010. At the time, it was stated that the program may be revived at a future date with a new location." if someone can summarize that without it being misleading. Otherwise, "Southern ended/discontinued its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010." is the best we can do. BelloWello (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was not "discontinued", or if it was we have no verifiable source saying such a thing. No where does it even say the program "ended" either. These are all assertions you are reading into the source, just as I reading into it that the program is back up (based on the information provided by it's leadership). Temporarily suspended sounds far more appropriate to me. The word suspended is actually used in the source. I have yet to see any of your suggestions use the source. Fountainviewkid 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see the word "temporary" in the source, rather I see it say that the Southern "put the brakes on" the program. Information provided by leadership in a private manner is irrelevant to this discussion, we go by reliable sources, and those alone. BelloWello (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes "put the brakes" as in stopped the program or "suspended" it. There is also evidence in the article that this would be a temporary situation. There is far stronger evidence for this being a "temporary suspension" than a "termination". Fountainviewkid 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone arguing for "termination" in this thread, do you? BelloWello (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- or "ending" or "discontinued"? I don't see either of those in the source. I do however see "suspended" with evidences that the action would be "temporary". Fountainviewkid 19:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- See my comment above, reproduced: "I do not see the word "temporary" in the source, rather I see it say that the Southern "put the brakes on" the program. Information provided by leadership in a private manner is irrelevant to this discussion, we go by reliable sources, and those alone." BelloWello (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- See the article. Is notes that it "may not be dead yet". In other words this could be temporary. It even notes a potential new location. This to me sounds like a temporary suspension. Fountainviewkid 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see the word "temporary" in the source. Whether or not it was temporary, it ended at one point. That is indisputable. The new location was quoted speculation and does not belong in the article. BelloWello (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- "temporary" is implied in the article itself. We have no record that it "ended". We know that it was halted or "discontinued" but this could mean either long term or short term. Looking at the rest of the article we can see quite clearly that there is evidence for this program continuing. Therefore, it looks more like a short-term (temporary) situation rather than long term. As a result words such as "ended", "terminated", or "discontinued" are unclear.Fountainviewkid 19:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see the word "temporary" in the source. Whether or not it was temporary, it ended at one point. That is indisputable. The new location was quoted speculation and does not belong in the article. BelloWello (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- See the article. Is notes that it "may not be dead yet". In other words this could be temporary. It even notes a potential new location. This to me sounds like a temporary suspension. Fountainviewkid 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- See my comment above, reproduced: "I do not see the word "temporary" in the source, rather I see it say that the Southern "put the brakes on" the program. Information provided by leadership in a private manner is irrelevant to this discussion, we go by reliable sources, and those alone." BelloWello (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- or "ending" or "discontinued"? I don't see either of those in the source. I do however see "suspended" with evidences that the action would be "temporary". Fountainviewkid 19:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone arguing for "termination" in this thread, do you? BelloWello (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was not "discontinued", or if it was we have no verifiable source saying such a thing. No where does it even say the program "ended" either. These are all assertions you are reading into the source, just as I reading into it that the program is back up (based on the information provided by it's leadership). Temporarily suspended sounds far more appropriate to me. The word suspended is actually used in the source. I have yet to see any of your suggestions use the source. Fountainviewkid 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was discontinued. "The program may not be completely dead, though." does not provide license to say it was temporarily suspended, it says the program ended but may be resurrected. As such, we should simply state that it was "discontinued," "ended," "interrupted," etc. It should not state that it was a temporary end, since the source doesn't explicitly say that, instead it hinted at the possibility. I would be okay with saying "Southern ended its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010. At the time, it was stated that the program may be revived at a future date with a new location." if someone can summarize that without it being misleading. Otherwise, "Southern ended/discontinued its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010." is the best we can do. BelloWello (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- And where is the word discontinue found? All the evidence states that this is likely to be temporary via the source. I say change it to "temporarily suspended". As for Mary Walker Towers, the article notes that this is likely to be the case. It may be good to add this into the line as well by saying something like "however there are still plans to continue it possible at Mary Walker Towers". Fountainviewkid 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- "A local college puts the brakes on a home health program after some of its nursing students are accosted." is also in that article. I would not have a problem with changing the word "terminated" to "discontinue" to reflect the source better. As for Mary Walker Towers, we do not have a source for it having moved and until there is a source that it has moved, there is no reason to include it. An email is irrelevant. BelloWello (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- If we go by verifiability then BelloWello (talk) has violated that stipulation by not reading what the source actually says. Here's a quote from the source, a short news clip. "The program may not be completely dead, though. The Dean of the school is thinking of moving the program to Mary Walker Towers, where the environment is more controlled and the students can be safer." To me this latest update corroborates what the source says. Fountainviewkid 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No, actually, there is no evidence for the program continuing. At the time of the article, the program had been discontinued, as you even admitted. You are right, it could mean short or long term, and since the article only says that the school would attempt to restart the program, it does not provide verification that it was temporary. Until there is a reliable source saying it's restarted, or that it was temporary, it is incorrect to include the word temporary. Can we at least agree to change the word to "discontinue" instead of "terminate" pending further discussion? BelloWello (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes there is evidence that the program would continue. All we know is that at some point it was halted, though whether this was long term or short term we have no solid evidence. Therefore we have to look at the rest of the article which provides strong evidence that this was a "temporary" situation. It's interesting that you don't want the word "temporary" since it's not the source, but you have no problem with the word "discontinue" which also isn't in the source. I would suggest that we either change the word to something directly from the source or change it to reflect the undetermined nature of the situation, which the article clearly stated. Fountainviewkid 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- What we know is that they ended/discontinued/halted/etc. the program. We do not know whether it was temporary, and there is no evidence that it was temporary in the article. Just that the school would like it to be temporary. I agree that the term "terminate" gives the wrong impression, would you agree to a change to "discontinue" for now? BelloWello (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- What we know is rather ambiguous. We know that at some point the program was "suspended". By definition suspended can easily mean temporary. For example if a person is "suspended" from work rather than fired there is a good chance they will be back at the job. I say we should stick to the source and it's wording. We do not know that it is temporary, but contrary to your assertion we have evidence that is was to be temporary. As for the school liking it to be, I would assume so but have no way of knowing for sure must as we do not know whether this was temporary or long term. As for "discontinue" it is not in the source. "Suspended" is the closest we have, which even that is still not the clearest, but is better than the current. If you're going to use a source you should use the terminology of it. No place does it say this program was "discontinued".Fountainviewkid 19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The source does not say temporary. Where is the evidence that it was to be temporary? All we have is a statement from someone at the school saying they're looking at possibilities. It was discontinued with the possibility that it would be brought back. For the third time I ask, do you agree to changing the word from "terminated" to "discontinued" for now? BelloWello (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- The source does not say "discontinued". The evidence for temporary stems from the fact that "this may not be the end". I don't know about you but for most people that means temporary rather than long term. Do you agree in changing it to "suspended" as the source says? If not I could probably go ahead and change it since that's the direct title itself. Fountainviewkid 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture. No, you cannot go ahead and change something like that which is currently under discussion without consensus. BelloWello (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- How can you object to what the title of the source says??? You said to use the source. Well I'm doing that. The source says "suspended" but in the title and in the text. There should be no dispute here. You can find a different source if you want, but until then we should use the text of the source. If you object to using the source material then that's an objection to the Wikipedia policy. I can't help if you object to the policy. Fountainviewkid 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting coming from someone who is currently arguing he should able to use a source that is not reliable under wikipedia policy on another article. As I said in my previous statement: "I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture." Suspended implies a set amount of time, which the article does not give us. Hence, it is most accurate to simply state that it was "discontinued," as you said above, "We know that it was halted or "discontinued," so why not just say that? BelloWello (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting indeed since you've been pushing that the source should be used word for word. I say we use the terminology of the source. That is the policy on here is it not? Hypocrisy goes more than other way obviously. Fountainviewkid 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have to use the exact words used in the source, we convey the meaning of the source: As my previous post said: "I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture." Suspended implies a set amount of time, which the article does not give us. Hence, it is most accurate to simply state that it was "discontinued," as you said above, "We know that it was halted or "discontinued," so why not just say that?" BelloWello (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we convey the source's meaning? It's stated twice that the program was "suspended" and the article hints that this "may not be the end". To say it was "discontinued" is to be rather dishonest to the source, intent, and meaning. Fountainviewkid 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we should convey the source's meaning. That's what I've been saying all along. The meaning is that it was "discontinued," as you said. Hence, whether or not it "may not be the end," the fact remains that it was "discontinued" at that point. You can add a caveat saying that there was the possibility of it restarting if you want, but don't try to make it sound like it was well planned. BelloWello (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- The source's meaning was "suspended" something it stated quite clearly. Discontinued gives a false understanding. It was "suspended" not discontinued. By saying something is "suspended" does not mean you are saying it was planned. Plenty of students get "suspended" and I'm pretty sure at least some of them didn't have that as their plan. Fountainviewkid 20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we should convey the source's meaning. That's what I've been saying all along. The meaning is that it was "discontinued," as you said. Hence, whether or not it "may not be the end," the fact remains that it was "discontinued" at that point. You can add a caveat saying that there was the possibility of it restarting if you want, but don't try to make it sound like it was well planned. BelloWello (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we convey the source's meaning? It's stated twice that the program was "suspended" and the article hints that this "may not be the end". To say it was "discontinued" is to be rather dishonest to the source, intent, and meaning. Fountainviewkid 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have to use the exact words used in the source, we convey the meaning of the source: As my previous post said: "I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture." Suspended implies a set amount of time, which the article does not give us. Hence, it is most accurate to simply state that it was "discontinued," as you said above, "We know that it was halted or "discontinued," so why not just say that?" BelloWello (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting indeed since you've been pushing that the source should be used word for word. I say we use the terminology of the source. That is the policy on here is it not? Hypocrisy goes more than other way obviously. Fountainviewkid 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting coming from someone who is currently arguing he should able to use a source that is not reliable under wikipedia policy on another article. As I said in my previous statement: "I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture." Suspended implies a set amount of time, which the article does not give us. Hence, it is most accurate to simply state that it was "discontinued," as you said above, "We know that it was halted or "discontinued," so why not just say that? BelloWello (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- How can you object to what the title of the source says??? You said to use the source. Well I'm doing that. The source says "suspended" but in the title and in the text. There should be no dispute here. You can find a different source if you want, but until then we should use the text of the source. If you object to using the source material then that's an objection to the Wikipedia policy. I can't help if you object to the policy. Fountainviewkid 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I object to simply saying suspended as it does not convey the whole picture. No, you cannot go ahead and change something like that which is currently under discussion without consensus. BelloWello (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- The source does not say "discontinued". The evidence for temporary stems from the fact that "this may not be the end". I don't know about you but for most people that means temporary rather than long term. Do you agree in changing it to "suspended" as the source says? If not I could probably go ahead and change it since that's the direct title itself. Fountainviewkid 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The source does not say temporary. Where is the evidence that it was to be temporary? All we have is a statement from someone at the school saying they're looking at possibilities. It was discontinued with the possibility that it would be brought back. For the third time I ask, do you agree to changing the word from "terminated" to "discontinued" for now? BelloWello (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- What we know is rather ambiguous. We know that at some point the program was "suspended". By definition suspended can easily mean temporary. For example if a person is "suspended" from work rather than fired there is a good chance they will be back at the job. I say we should stick to the source and it's wording. We do not know that it is temporary, but contrary to your assertion we have evidence that is was to be temporary. As for the school liking it to be, I would assume so but have no way of knowing for sure must as we do not know whether this was temporary or long term. As for "discontinue" it is not in the source. "Suspended" is the closest we have, which even that is still not the clearest, but is better than the current. If you're going to use a source you should use the terminology of it. No place does it say this program was "discontinued".Fountainviewkid 19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- What we know is that they ended/discontinued/halted/etc. the program. We do not know whether it was temporary, and there is no evidence that it was temporary in the article. Just that the school would like it to be temporary. I agree that the term "terminate" gives the wrong impression, would you agree to a change to "discontinue" for now? BelloWello (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You yourself said it is clear it was discontinued. You unwittingly helped back up my point, a student suspended from school knows exactly how long a suspension will last, suspension usually implies having at least some idea when it will be over, there is no reason to believe that was the case at Southern, the article leaves the impression they were scrambling to find a way to restart the program. In this case, suspension meant they were discontinuing it with the intent of finding a way begin it again. If you'd like, you can state it like that, "discontinued" but that the school was "actively working to restart it" or something like that. That would be an accurate portrayal. BelloWello (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Argue with the source that you were previously defending. I take back the statement about it being discontinued as that is also unclear and rather misleading, especially if it is currently operating which it may in fact be. There is good reason from the source to believe the suspension was not permanent and good reason to doubt that the program was actually "discontinued" as you would like to wrongly assert. As I said USE THE SOURCE! The source says "suspended" but in title and in text. "actively working to restart" maybe could work as well since it demonstrates that this wasn't meant to be an "end".Fountainviewkid 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- As you previously believed, "discontinued" is an accurate description of the source. We don't have to use the exact words as long as it conveys the idea, which is "discontinued" while the school worked to "restart" it. BelloWello (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- No I've argued that "suspended" or "temporarily suspended" were better choices, but thanks for the attempt at trying to read my mind. I say use the exact words if the convey the meaning well, which they do. Very well in fact. What's so wrong with using the source's own words? Isn't that the highest verifiability? Fountainviewkid 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I say use the words that describe the meaning best, which is "discontinued" with the stipulation that the school will "work to restart," completely accurate and reasonable taken from the source. What exactly is the problem with that approach? BelloWello (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I say use the words that describe the meaning best, which is "supspended" with the stipulation that the school will "work to restart," completely accurate and taken directly from the source. What exactly is the problem with that approach? Fountainviewkid 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Discontinued is clearer with the stipulation that the school is working to restart it. Stop trying to minimize everything here. You even admitted in a moment of truth that it was accurate. BelloWello (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- No it's false. "Suspended" is much clearer and it is the terminology of the source. I say trust the source since that what Wikipedia is supposed to do. No in a moment of error I said something wrong. Fountainviewkid 21:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong. Discontinued w/ the restart designation is clearer, gives the reader a fuller picture and is fully verifiable from the source. BelloWello (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, "Suspended" is a better word and is used in the source. Discontinued gives a confused picture. Fountainviewkid 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, although suspended is used in the source, as you said previously, discontinued is also accurate and gives the reader a better view of what actually happened. The article is a lot longer than we will devote to the issue here, we don't have to use its wording, we just need to convey the message, which discontinued does aptly. BelloWello (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- No Suspended is a better term to use. I never said "discontinued" was a better term either. The wording of the article conveys the message the best. Fountainviewkid 3:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why are we arguing over such a simple thing? YOU WANT the term "SUSPENDED," I prefer the term "DISCONTINUED." In good faith, I offered the compromise of saying the most accurate, "discontinued" with the school "working to restart." If you don't like that compromise, I prefer the current wording to suspended, hence, I will resist changes from that wording, meaning, under WP:BRD you cannot change the words. So do you like the compromise "discontinued" and "working to restart" or do you want to keep the word "terminate?" Which is it going to be? Because you are NOT going to convince me to use suspended. BelloWello (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- You offered the compromise? To what? To change it to your still false wording? I believe we should go with the source which says "suspended". It's very ironic that on Wiki you want us to say a program which is currently running has been "discontinued". I don't know but that seems a little bit false. Once the article can be edited I believe we should go ahead and change it to the source wording. Other than you, everyone else on here seems not to disagree, especially those who are more knowledgeable about the situation. Fountainviewkid 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why are we arguing over such a simple thing? YOU WANT the term "SUSPENDED," I prefer the term "DISCONTINUED." In good faith, I offered the compromise of saying the most accurate, "discontinued" with the school "working to restart." If you don't like that compromise, I prefer the current wording to suspended, hence, I will resist changes from that wording, meaning, under WP:BRD you cannot change the words. So do you like the compromise "discontinued" and "working to restart" or do you want to keep the word "terminate?" Which is it going to be? Because you are NOT going to convince me to use suspended. BelloWello (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- No Suspended is a better term to use. I never said "discontinued" was a better term either. The wording of the article conveys the message the best. Fountainviewkid 3:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, although suspended is used in the source, as you said previously, discontinued is also accurate and gives the reader a better view of what actually happened. The article is a lot longer than we will devote to the issue here, we don't have to use its wording, we just need to convey the message, which discontinued does aptly. BelloWello (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, "Suspended" is a better word and is used in the source. Discontinued gives a confused picture. Fountainviewkid 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong. Discontinued w/ the restart designation is clearer, gives the reader a fuller picture and is fully verifiable from the source. BelloWello (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- No it's false. "Suspended" is much clearer and it is the terminology of the source. I say trust the source since that what Wikipedia is supposed to do. No in a moment of error I said something wrong. Fountainviewkid 21:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Discontinued is clearer with the stipulation that the school is working to restart it. Stop trying to minimize everything here. You even admitted in a moment of truth that it was accurate. BelloWello (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I say use the words that describe the meaning best, which is "supspended" with the stipulation that the school will "work to restart," completely accurate and taken directly from the source. What exactly is the problem with that approach? Fountainviewkid 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I say use the words that describe the meaning best, which is "discontinued" with the stipulation that the school will "work to restart," completely accurate and reasonable taken from the source. What exactly is the problem with that approach? BelloWello (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- No I've argued that "suspended" or "temporarily suspended" were better choices, but thanks for the attempt at trying to read my mind. I say use the exact words if the convey the meaning well, which they do. Very well in fact. What's so wrong with using the source's own words? Isn't that the highest verifiability? Fountainviewkid 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- As you previously believed, "discontinued" is an accurate description of the source. We don't have to use the exact words as long as it conveys the idea, which is "discontinued" while the school worked to "restart" it. BelloWello (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You wanted to use the misleading word "suspended." I argue for the word "discontinued." In a good faith attempt to bridge the difference, I suggested "discontinued" with the school "working to bring back" the program. Since you are not amendable to compromise, I say we just keep the language the way it is. I remind you that under WP:BRD the onus is on the person arguing for a change to get clear consensus before making the change. There is no such consensus at this point, and a large number of single area accounts don't change that. Do you have a source for it currently running? DO YOU? If you don't, then it's speculation, and it's completely irrelevant to us here. If you think there is consensus for the change, make a request for edit. BelloWello (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I wanted to use the word from the source! What's so misleading about that? You're the one being misleading by using a word that is not in the source and conveys a different meaning. May I remind you that clear consensus doesn't have to be achieved, or else Progressive Adventist would still be in the title with Cottrell. I especially don't need it when using the source itself. I have many sources, though none of them are currently in "print". There is a "consensus" with all except for you. This change is warranted and should happen. Stick with the source, not your opinion.Fountainviewkid 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Clear consensus does have to be achieved when making changes that are not agreed to. "Consensus" without x, is not consensus when there are two or three active editors. Progressive was removed because YOU ADDED it without consensus, so you are again making unnecessary comparisons. Instead of bringing up separate issues everywhere, perhaps you should just focus on each issue individually. BelloWello (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have unarchived this discussion since an editor insists consensus has been reached for his change, I fail to see the consensus. Hence, I continue my contention that discontinue is the most accurate portrayal. My logic is laid out clearly above, I am interested in hearing a well-thought out policy argument why this is unacceptable? BelloWello (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is consensus for "suspended." I recommend that both of you do not start edit warring over this again. The community is becomming quite fed up with this and if edit warring resumes I would not be surprised if it led to topic bans for both of you. Lionel (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- And where, may I ask, is this consensus? This is the only discussion I can find on this topic. So what we have is an editor with a conflict of interest who started a thread (and never participated in discussion over exact wording), then Fountainviewkid and I going back and forth on this. So please point me to where this consensus was reached, Lionelt, because I don't see it. BelloWello (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is consensus for "suspended." I recommend that both of you do not start edit warring over this again. The community is becomming quite fed up with this and if edit warring resumes I would not be surprised if it led to topic bans for both of you. Lionel (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Bello: Simba, Fountain and myself (Lionelt) all feel that "suspended" is the best representation of the source. All 3 us us have reverted you on this. As of now this is consensus. It is not 100%, but it is the overwhelming majority. If you feel otherwise feel free to persuade us that your position is an improvement of the article. There appears to be a slow edit war emerging over this and it must stop. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- If the Dean of the School of Nursing has challenged the accuracy of what we have written here at Wikipedia, I think that is good reason to comment out the whole section until we can verify the facts in a manner suitable to wikipedia standards and in keeping with what seems to be the facts of the situation. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what the actual facts we can determine through research are, what matters is what can be cited to reliable sources. An email to an anonymous contributor is not a reliable source and is irrelevant to the discussion. However, if we're using personal secondhand knowledge of the program, I talked to my friend (a nursing student there) last week and she said that they were still trying to restart it and the program they have right now is a pilot program. However, that is as irrelevant to article development as the email because no reliable sources have reported on it. Hence, until that time, it does the reader the most benefit to say it was discontinued, however, since that is not agreeable, I have used a quote from the source that SAU "put the breaks on" its program. Either way, if it is impossible to achieve consensus for that wording, I insist we revert to the previous wording of "terminated" until consensus is reached since that was the original stable version. BelloWello (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that emails don't provide citable sources. However, both the emails mentioned can and should influence our thinking as we proceed. For example, once I read about the Mary Walker Towers I went back to the December 7 source and realized that we could use the Dean's forward thinking to get us closer to what has been reported in the emails. I went ahead and tweaked the info based on the Pulse report. This does not create any more reliance on the emails than before but I have allowed my belief in the emails authenticity to move me along in my editing the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what the actual facts we can determine through research are, what matters is what can be cited to reliable sources. An email to an anonymous contributor is not a reliable source and is irrelevant to the discussion. However, if we're using personal secondhand knowledge of the program, I talked to my friend (a nursing student there) last week and she said that they were still trying to restart it and the program they have right now is a pilot program. However, that is as irrelevant to article development as the email because no reliable sources have reported on it. Hence, until that time, it does the reader the most benefit to say it was discontinued, however, since that is not agreeable, I have used a quote from the source that SAU "put the breaks on" its program. Either way, if it is impossible to achieve consensus for that wording, I insist we revert to the previous wording of "terminated" until consensus is reached since that was the original stable version. BelloWello (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- If the Dean of the School of Nursing has challenged the accuracy of what we have written here at Wikipedia, I think that is good reason to comment out the whole section until we can verify the facts in a manner suitable to wikipedia standards and in keeping with what seems to be the facts of the situation. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Obvious bias, Intense bias, etc.
I think the strength of a wikipedia article is in its facts acceptable to all. In a court system the prosecutors and defence attorneys work to create an agreed upon statement of the facts. This should be our goal for a wikipedia article, if possible. The citing of a source is only one necessary component. If the source is obviously a rant, or intensely biased, then even if the author is a respected scholar, the rant should be considered unacceptable. Change the wording, use more diplomatic understatement and the same thing can be said. Cottrell's essay cited in the Southern wikipedia article is very close to a rant. He gives away his bias by using inflammatory language. IMO, his intense bias is obvious by use of such words and phrases as Southern Bible belt obscurantism. 'Progressive' reformed conservatives like Cottrell could be as difficult as the obscurantists. Cottrell calls Hasel the ruthless personification of Adventist obscurantism. Perhaps this is good liberal, or progressive fun, but it is far from a scholarly way to write. I can hear the self-righteous liberals cheering as their iconic writer lambasts the self-righteous ultra-conservatives. The lynching of Gladson. I feel the term satisfies my consternation as to what happened to Gladson, but the term is not an accurate scholarly term. He describes him as closed-minded and ruthless as Torquemada. Again, Cottell is not writing for scholarship. Rather, he is playing to his readership and venting. Perhaps rightfully so, but to cite Cottrell in this mood as sound thinking scholarship is to misuse this particular Cottrell source. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not require that sources come from a neutral point of view. Also, it seems only the first example you gave is included in the article, and it comes from a reliable source and is included with attribution, not the voice of wikipedia. BelloWello (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article can be found at http://www.atoday.com/content/sanctuary-doctrineasset-or-liability-part-4 . I am okay with citing of biased authors, but I don't think that their statements should be cited as fact but rather opinion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The current format is "In 2001, noted Adventist scholar, the late Raymond Cottrell said that...," that is in-text attribution and makes clear it is just something he said, ie. an opinion. It doesn't make it fact. I would like to get some comments about Southern's ideology from the other end to counter balance it. Maybe Colin D. Standish has written something? BelloWello (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "said" does not imply fact rather than opinion. But when we cite something inflammatory without opposing balance, we show our own bias quite often. I will look for some opposing balance such as you suggest from Standish et al DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked quite extensively for counter opinions regarding Southern and haven't found them in any reliable sources or from any notable individuals, meaning it would be hard to claim legitimacy without them... That said, I made a few more edits to your changes, feel free to undue them if you think it obscures that it is an opinion (which I really don't see how anyone could miss, what else could it be?). BelloWello (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked over your newer wording. I think it helps. Look at it this way: When I cite from a source, it is because that source is sensible, factual and well-reasoned. If a source, like Cottrell's, is obviously inflammatory, I will make sure that my readership understands that I am presenting it because it is inflammatory. I am not presenting it because I think it is a level-headed carefully reasoned statement. I also keep in mind that what I write, or edit, for wikipedia is often about something that other people have an interest in fairness and goodwill. This is why some react when the fairness and goodwill seem to be missing. The masturbation debate is a good example of this concern for fair balance and goodwill. It is interesting that the teacher's simple admission caused such a furor but common sense tells me that there were bigger issues at play and that the media, including Spectrum, loves to exaggerate and build on a scandal. Wikipedia editors should resist the scandal frenzy and be known for carefully reasoned edits. As I get acquainted with the Wiki way, I am pleased with much of the end results and less of initial writings, including my own. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I like your approach. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked over your newer wording. I think it helps. Look at it this way: When I cite from a source, it is because that source is sensible, factual and well-reasoned. If a source, like Cottrell's, is obviously inflammatory, I will make sure that my readership understands that I am presenting it because it is inflammatory. I am not presenting it because I think it is a level-headed carefully reasoned statement. I also keep in mind that what I write, or edit, for wikipedia is often about something that other people have an interest in fairness and goodwill. This is why some react when the fairness and goodwill seem to be missing. The masturbation debate is a good example of this concern for fair balance and goodwill. It is interesting that the teacher's simple admission caused such a furor but common sense tells me that there were bigger issues at play and that the media, including Spectrum, loves to exaggerate and build on a scandal. Wikipedia editors should resist the scandal frenzy and be known for carefully reasoned edits. As I get acquainted with the Wiki way, I am pleased with much of the end results and less of initial writings, including my own. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked quite extensively for counter opinions regarding Southern and haven't found them in any reliable sources or from any notable individuals, meaning it would be hard to claim legitimacy without them... That said, I made a few more edits to your changes, feel free to undue them if you think it obscures that it is an opinion (which I really don't see how anyone could miss, what else could it be?). BelloWello (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "said" does not imply fact rather than opinion. But when we cite something inflammatory without opposing balance, we show our own bias quite often. I will look for some opposing balance such as you suggest from Standish et al DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The current format is "In 2001, noted Adventist scholar, the late Raymond Cottrell said that...," that is in-text attribution and makes clear it is just something he said, ie. an opinion. It doesn't make it fact. I would like to get some comments about Southern's ideology from the other end to counter balance it. Maybe Colin D. Standish has written something? BelloWello (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article can be found at http://www.atoday.com/content/sanctuary-doctrineasset-or-liability-part-4 . I am okay with citing of biased authors, but I don't think that their statements should be cited as fact but rather opinion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I see what's going on. Cottrell is a lefty. He's bashing SAU which he feels is right wing. That kinda explains why an editor replaced "progressive" with "noted" in reference to Cottrell, and why an editor feels compelled to repeatedly insert "conservative" in the lede. Cottrell is being reinvented as "moderate" in order to exemplify how far right SAU is. Donald is not enthusiastic about the biased, rabid rhetoric and wants a rebuttal. Is this the gist of it? (Sounds like the section title should be Criticism, not Ideology.) Lionel (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see what's going on? Do you? Your writing makes me think of a conspiracy theory. For me, there is nothing "going on". My nature is to seek for a consensus. (Wikipedia likes consensus work.) I am not aware of citation evidence that Cottrell was either left or right. The terms are labels; hard to prove labels at that. My response to "progressive" was after the label was challenged. Then I got thinking about the term "progressive". Cottrell lived before the term progressive was used to describe a type of Adventist. Now there are people who call themselves progressive. However, for me, the label implies an organized group or at least an intentional self-labeling. There are no citations available to define Cottrell as "progressive". There is plenty of evidence that he was "noted". If I suggest "noted" over "progressive" it is to move along a consensus. There is no attempt on my part to identify Cottrell as a moderate. In his later years, I don't think the label is accurate. Moderates don't write the things Cottrell wrote. He addressed matters that concerned him. His unscholarly opinions about Southern comes as evidence that he did not like Southern's ideology. Adventists don't usually "attack" each other in their own journals. Cottrell used Spectrum to opinionate about Southern. But, the term "progressive" is not accurate. We usually put forward our ideas based on what we believe is right. Let's cite what Cottrell said not label him. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Lionelt on this one. It's not a conspiracy theory. I also believe that a certain editor is putting a certain view in to make conservatives appear "extreme" and liberals appear "moderate" or "respected". There is evidence that Cottrell was lefty (or progressive). Adventist Today which he helped found quotes itself as "progressive" and quotes him as supporting progressive values. LaSierra University a bastion of Progressive Adventism also calls him "progressive". Sure the terms may not have been used in those older days, but as recently as the 80's the labels did appear. Furthermore church historians have been going back and engaging in this labeling for purposes of classification. While Cottrell may not have labeled himself as a "progressive" enough secondary sources have that I would support that designation as accurate. Fountainviewkid 17:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please feel free to discuss any of the content changes you have been making, Fountainviewkid, instead of simply making them and reverting anyone who undos them. Remember, the onus is on you to show why your changes are necessary. I will ignore the first part of your message which does not pertain to improving content. As for the label, I am yet to see a single reliable source that labels him as progressive, I've seen sources that say that he holds "view x" and another source that says "view x"=progressive, but using that would be synthesis and original research. In order to WP:LABEL someone, we need a reliable source to do it for us. In any case, that is unnecessary on this article. If you want to go to Cottrell's article and label him progressive there, that can be discussed on that talk page. BelloWello (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Lionelt on this one. It's not a conspiracy theory. I also believe that a certain editor is putting a certain view in to make conservatives appear "extreme" and liberals appear "moderate" or "respected". There is evidence that Cottrell was lefty (or progressive). Adventist Today which he helped found quotes itself as "progressive" and quotes him as supporting progressive values. LaSierra University a bastion of Progressive Adventism also calls him "progressive". Sure the terms may not have been used in those older days, but as recently as the 80's the labels did appear. Furthermore church historians have been going back and engaging in this labeling for purposes of classification. While Cottrell may not have labeled himself as a "progressive" enough secondary sources have that I would support that designation as accurate. Fountainviewkid 17:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see what's going on? Do you? Your writing makes me think of a conspiracy theory. For me, there is nothing "going on". My nature is to seek for a consensus. (Wikipedia likes consensus work.) I am not aware of citation evidence that Cottrell was either left or right. The terms are labels; hard to prove labels at that. My response to "progressive" was after the label was challenged. Then I got thinking about the term "progressive". Cottrell lived before the term progressive was used to describe a type of Adventist. Now there are people who call themselves progressive. However, for me, the label implies an organized group or at least an intentional self-labeling. There are no citations available to define Cottrell as "progressive". There is plenty of evidence that he was "noted". If I suggest "noted" over "progressive" it is to move along a consensus. There is no attempt on my part to identify Cottrell as a moderate. In his later years, I don't think the label is accurate. Moderates don't write the things Cottrell wrote. He addressed matters that concerned him. His unscholarly opinions about Southern comes as evidence that he did not like Southern's ideology. Adventists don't usually "attack" each other in their own journals. Cottrell used Spectrum to opinionate about Southern. But, the term "progressive" is not accurate. We usually put forward our ideas based on what we believe is right. Let's cite what Cottrell said not label him. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Southern referred to as Conservative, Strict, etc. in weak sources
I have been looking for solid sources which refer to SAU as a conservative school. Very little acceptable sources. However, I have run across some pretty strong blog sources. Dr. Bietz, President of SAU, has done a few things which have been criticized by avowed fundamentalist Adventists. At a fund-raiser for El Salvador, some of the students got animated to music. Bietz was criticized for allowing it. ANN reported Bietz' input into the creation debate at the 2010 General Conference: "In what some observers viewed as an attempt to stall the more critical aspect of the measure, Southern Adventist University president Gordon Bietz moved to divide the resolution. The motion passed, separating the affirmation of the 2004 statement from the reopening of Fundamental Belief 6 for review and rewriting, the latter to incorporate the intent of the 2004 statement. However, both parts of the now-divided measure passed with strong votes." http://www.educatetruth.com/news/ann-reports-on-affirmation-of-creation-and-fb-6-enhancement/
Then below in the comment section, views about Southern are stated:
Michael J. Cookenmaster, Ed.D. writes:
"I am concerned. We have chosen to send our daughter, who is an up-coming senior at Campion Academy, to Southern because of its historical, and traditional Adventist teachings. Dr. Bietz has me worried if we are making the right decision. My daughter, wife, and I need to take this next year into serious consideration and as a matter of prayer. "
Sean Pitman replies: "I can personally assure you that, despite the opposition of Dr. Bietz to the affirmation of creation at the GC session, SAU remains one of the strongest supporters of the SDA position on origins. The science faculty at Southern are extremely supportive of a recent literal 6-day creation and will only hire additional faculty who openly endorse the same. I’m not sure why there is such a disconnect between the science faculty at SAU and the president of SAU, but there evidently is…"
"Tom Zwemer - Sat, 02/19/2011 - 09:31 The recent videotaped episode at Southern has created quite a stir, far beyond the magnitude of the event. The causes are multiple, some with a considerable history. The image of Southern has been projected as fundamentally inclined, pompously and beastly pious, and harshly vindictive to any progressive thought or questioning of historic roots. The President has been quiet, subdued, and staid; at least that is the impression or projection in the “field”. The video thus came as an “eye opener”. Some heralded it as a breath of fresh air, others viewed in with shock and awe—as the slide into apostasy—and a direct fulfillment of prophecy. I have had a long history with both Southern and with the Bietz family: particularly the parents of the president and his brother, the physician. I have found them delightfully open, congenial, pragmatic, and open minded. I spent 11 years on the Board at Southern and each of my three children spent at least one year of college at Southern prior to transferring to LLU. The recent image of Southern has been refigured by the aggressive defense of Ellen G. White by Dr. Jud Lake. A stance so open and vigorous as to place the entire institution in a defensive position or mind-set: thus, making the video, even the more surprising: welcoming to some and a shock to others. I personally, view it as a mild tempest in a gym by a group of enthusiastic young people, looking for any excuse to express pent up energy. They found a “good cause” and a receptive administration. What makes it “news” is the prior image, cultivated carefully for the past 30 years. As a personal aside, given the general prior impression of the institution, I think it was good news—I was not surprised by the reaction from the “field”. Finally, Dr. Beitz, I knew your parents. They were great people, straight forward open Christians. They would have been proud. Tom Z."
Of course, these informal comments don't make good citation for an article but they certainly lend color to the discussion about Southern's ideology.
Dr. Bietz is showing himself to be more liberal than some people want for a SAU President. Thus, we have a current example of the tension possible at SAU re: Ideology. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I know there's criticism, the problem I run into is that they're not published in reliable sources.
- "It is known for its emphasis on conservative religious and social practices." 'It is known' is not in the source, and it is a blog and should probably be removed. For now, I'm going to attribute it. The source used for "the most conservative" in the lede is a self published website. A SPS can only speak about itself. I'm removing it. Lionel (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the website, it is an official website of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, what you have here is the organization that (indirectly) owns SAU calling it the most conservative. It is certainly notable. You can remove "it is known" if you want, I originally wrote "it has been noted," maybe "Spectrum magazine noted it for.." would be good? But then, Spectrum is a reliable source so we have no reason to atribute since it is speaking in the voice of spectrum. Hey, Lionelt, you should try replying on the threads that are already there regarding this. Stop moving the conversation around to suit your purposes. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The website says "© 2011 North American Division Children's Ministries." Lionel (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Southern referred to as conservative" is the wrong thread????????? Lionel (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Stop moving the conversation around to suit your purposes" is WP:UNCIVIL. Please stop. Lionel (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- After further review, Bello may be correct, the website may be linked to SDA. (Shows you how much I know about SDA.) However, that brings up another issue: Bello is adamantly opposed to self-pub sources. By his own rationale, this source should not be included. Lionel (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to Lionelt, there is nothing wrong with a primary source. Hence it should be reincluded. And yes, there are threads already for each of those specifics. here for the North American Division quote and here for the reliably sourced Spectrum Magazine designation for its emphasis. BelloWello (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- SAU and Adventist Children’s Ministries Association are different orgs. I believe SELFPUB applies to ACMA when it is speaking about ACMA. I don't think just because they share the same parent that they are considered the same for SELFPUB. What do you think? Lionel (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The North American Division (NAD) Office of Children's Ministry would be selfpublished in reference to any entity operated by the NAD which is in turn owned by the General Conference (GC), they are both just subsidiaries of the same entity (Adventist Church is set up like corporation, the Conference owns all the deeds to local church buildings, etc.). However, I think this particular case merits inclusion because (i) it is simply a statement of comparison of entities within the organization, (ii) neither the NAD or SAU has anything to gain by making such a comparison, and (iii) it does not compromise the NAD's objectivity to compare between entities that it has the same relation to each of them. Essentially, the source is simply making a statement of fact that SAU is the most conservative school run by the Church, nothing to gain or lose from that statement; neither is it promotional or advertising in nature. It is also inherently notable that it is called the most conservative among the system, I would say the same if the source called La Sierra least conservative. BelloWello (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- SAU and Adventist Children’s Ministries Association are different orgs. I believe SELFPUB applies to ACMA when it is speaking about ACMA. I don't think just because they share the same parent that they are considered the same for SELFPUB. What do you think? Lionel (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to Lionelt, there is nothing wrong with a primary source. Hence it should be reincluded. And yes, there are threads already for each of those specifics. here for the North American Division quote and here for the reliably sourced Spectrum Magazine designation for its emphasis. BelloWello (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- After further review, Bello may be correct, the website may be linked to SDA. (Shows you how much I know about SDA.) However, that brings up another issue: Bello is adamantly opposed to self-pub sources. By his own rationale, this source should not be included. Lionel (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the website, it is an official website of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, what you have here is the organization that (indirectly) owns SAU calling it the most conservative. It is certainly notable. You can remove "it is known" if you want, I originally wrote "it has been noted," maybe "Spectrum magazine noted it for.." would be good? But then, Spectrum is a reliable source so we have no reason to atribute since it is speaking in the voice of spectrum. Hey, Lionelt, you should try replying on the threads that are already there regarding this. Stop moving the conversation around to suit your purposes. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- "It is known for its emphasis on conservative religious and social practices." 'It is known' is not in the source, and it is a blog and should probably be removed. For now, I'm going to attribute it. The source used for "the most conservative" in the lede is a self published website. A SPS can only speak about itself. I'm removing it. Lionel (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources
Primary sources are not all equal. Some autobiographies slant the truth. Bello has mentioned Adventist sources as biased toward Southern. In a way, this is true. Adventists do not usually publish criticism of its own entities and people in their periodicals. We cannot use Adventist publications to get to the bottom of a controversy. But, this does not mean that all Adventist publications should be ruled out as invalid sources. As I work with Adventist Archives, I am impressed with the opportunity before us in preparing sound historical studies on hundreds of Adventist people and entities. Much of the information published in Adventist periodicals can be used to document the history under study. Even a website produced by Southern is not useless, but it is not the best NPOV source. Southern will not present criticism or problems. It is not their job. However, they do provide some neutral, unbiased information. An encyclopedia should report on all major aspects related to the subject of an article. If we did not have Spectrum, Adventist Today, the works of the Standish brothers, or Adventist Affirm, etc. we would not have very much source material for controversies. Wikipedia editors all have personal biases. Their task is to avoid uncited opinions or assertions. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think you bring up excellent points and rather than move rashly, all the editors should be allowed to present their veiw on the matter before the article is changed or content taken out. Simbagraphix (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. If we truly want to build by consensus then we should have at least an informal agreement that we will not move forward on a controversial statement without 100% agreement. It may be necessary to "comment out" highly controversial material, discuss the matter, and then move forward with that 100% agreement. This is a much more difficult process than an edit war but the end results are much more satisfying. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think you bring up excellent points and rather than move rashly, all the editors should be allowed to present their veiw on the matter before the article is changed or content taken out. Simbagraphix (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- The point is that in this day and age, any major institution will produce masses of promotional or semi-promotional information about itself in its own, or affiliated, print and online publications. Per WP:PSTS & WP:SELFPUB it is clearly Wikipedia policy not to allow such self-assessments to predominate. For one thing, there will always be far more of it available than third-party material, so allowing it a significant foothold will pretty much guarantee that more neutral and/or more prominent third-party views will get shouted down. Yes, WP:UNIGUIDE says we should "mention the notable academic divisions" -- these would be divisions that third parties state are outstanding (most probably for producing outstanding research -- NOT for such red herrings as "murders, tasering, fires and other crimes and misdemeaners" -- WP:NOTNEWS applies there -- unless the scandal was directly relevant to the division's academic reputation). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's rules arise out of common sense, it seems. The school's programs are matters of fact. The school's assessment of itself is not useful on Wikipedia. Others can assess. I am assuming that third party mention includes any source not originating from those employed at Southern. For example, the Review and Herald or Southern Union Worker are SDA periodicals but not directly connected to Southern. You have mentioned murders, tasering, fires and other crimes and misdemeaners as not rising to notability status. Perhaps. Yet, it seems to be expected that all of the specifically mentioned events would have a profound influence on campus. This is where third party documentation would be especially helpful; not of the event but of the event's impact on school life. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- (i) I am assuming 'affiliated' coverage (as mentioned in {{primarysources}}) would include any source whose shared (e.g. religious) affiliation with SAU would suggest a reasonable expectation that it would give SAU greater or more favourable coverage. The closer the affiliation, the more reasonable the expectation. This would certainly include Adventist newspapers and blogs. (ii) All localities experience a degree of crime. Often these individual crimes will be reported in the news media. Unless the severity or prevalence of these crimes is sufficient to warrant serious secondary source discussion associating them with the locality, I can see no reason not to treat it as WP:NOTNEWS -- and would suggest that you will rarely, if ever, see them mentioned. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the notability of university divisions (which is how it originally arose in #Tag bombing above -- as a red herring). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hrafn takes it further than I do, I would allow sources like Spectrum Magazine and Adventist Today since they are independent of the church, however, I see the wisdom in Hrafn's position as well. BelloWello (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- (i) I am assuming 'affiliated' coverage (as mentioned in {{primarysources}}) would include any source whose shared (e.g. religious) affiliation with SAU would suggest a reasonable expectation that it would give SAU greater or more favourable coverage. The closer the affiliation, the more reasonable the expectation. This would certainly include Adventist newspapers and blogs. (ii) All localities experience a degree of crime. Often these individual crimes will be reported in the news media. Unless the severity or prevalence of these crimes is sufficient to warrant serious secondary source discussion associating them with the locality, I can see no reason not to treat it as WP:NOTNEWS -- and would suggest that you will rarely, if ever, see them mentioned. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the notability of university divisions (which is how it originally arose in #Tag bombing above -- as a red herring). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's rules arise out of common sense, it seems. The school's programs are matters of fact. The school's assessment of itself is not useful on Wikipedia. Others can assess. I am assuming that third party mention includes any source not originating from those employed at Southern. For example, the Review and Herald or Southern Union Worker are SDA periodicals but not directly connected to Southern. You have mentioned murders, tasering, fires and other crimes and misdemeaners as not rising to notability status. Perhaps. Yet, it seems to be expected that all of the specifically mentioned events would have a profound influence on campus. This is where third party documentation would be especially helpful; not of the event but of the event's impact on school life. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is where we stand on sources, as I see it:
- SAU is OK: Lionelt, Donald, Simba
- Adventist Today et al OK: Lionelt, Donald, Simba, get ready... Bello
All unacceptable: Hfran-- Please DO NOT misrepresent my comments -- it is in violation of WP:TALK HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)- Lionel (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think on Adventist Today et al we have consensus. Hfran raises important points, but I don't see any reason why those sources should be tagged en masse, so I'm going to remove those tags. If an editor has an objection to a specific citing of a specific source by all means let's talk about it.Lionel (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, we do not have consensus. An editor is still objecting, and per DonaldRichardSand's comments, we want full consensus before making changes. Furthermore, I object to your removing tags of self-published sources as well, per the arguments set forth above against self-published sources which you have simply ignored rather than answering. BelloWello (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think on Adventist Today et al we have consensus. Hfran raises important points, but I don't see any reason why those sources should be tagged en masse, so I'm going to remove those tags. If an editor has an objection to a specific citing of a specific source by all means let's talk about it.Lionel (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn's stand on sources
As Lionelt has seen fit to misrepresent my views, it behooves me to state them here:
- I do not think that Adventist sources are "All unacceptable"
- I do think that using a preponderance (or even too significant a minority) of such sources is unacceptable, per WP:PSTS & WP:ABOUTSELF.
- Where noteworthiness or bias of the information is not an issue, I think it's perfectly acceptable to use Adventist sources. Where they are an issue, the closeness of affiliation versus the degree to which they are an issue needs to be considered.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was only attempting to summarize where we were: I didn't intend to misrepresent you. "As I see it" refers to my understanding. Lionel (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal
A majority of editors find SAU to be an acceptable source. A minority has stated concerns that SAU is promotional and that the article should not be based on such sources, and have liberally tagged the article. There appears to be an impasse.
I propose that the specific objection to each individual citation of SAU be listed here, and it's disposition discussed, similar to WP:RSN. Individual citations not brought here will have their 'primary source' tag removed after a reasonable time. Lionel (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately, wikipedia works by consensus, not majority rule. The tags should remain until the concerns expressed are addressed. They have been addressed 'en masse,' and there is no requirement that each concern be brought up individually. I still would like the editors in this "majority," which actually is not a majority, it is exactly half. Three editors are going along with Lionelt, Donald has stated his opinion, but has also stated that he supports reaching a consensus that includes everyone, and two editors are against inclusion. BelloWello (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi all. I suggest that we not remove any source. Rather, let's agree that SAU sources about Southern have their limits. I think we all would agree that when SAU identifies its course offerings and campus buildings that this provides a reasonably objective source. Perhaps when Southern markets itself, those statements are not the best to cite. It is much more effective if some entity rather than SAU praises the school. Regarding primary sources. Let's debate each one as a concern. Whoever has a concern about the type of source, raise the concern; use the best logic and rationale to support your position. I have seen where an admin comes in and reads beyond the differences of the article group and takes action. That may be necessary here. Some of us are worlds apart from each other and a bit stubborn. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the limits go beyond that. Using SAU is perfectly acceptable for, for example, stating what the major academic structures/divisions and positions are within the university. However, I do not think that they are an appropriate source for deciding which of the finer grained structures display sufficient uniqueness or merit to be worthy of mention. For this I would expect non-routine coverage from a non-Adventist/non-local source. And beyond that of course is the question of balance, not just whether, but how much. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)