Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

McKee Library

The "McKee Library" section is sourced entirely to Davis, Charles E. (January 13, 1977). "Historical Library is Opened at SMC". Review and Herald (Takoma Park, Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 154 (2): 20. Retrieved June 17, 2011.. The Review and Herald Publishing Association is owned by the Adventist Church which also owns SAU. Is a self-published source sufficient for a nearly 700 character section in a relatively short article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.150.157 (talk • contribs) 12:06, August 26, 2011

While this source may have some association, the publishing association is a separate entity from the university. Such a claim of "self-published" is controversial and I would oppose this change. I also note that this article has a history of IP's from a banned user acting as socks, so we should be careful about these requests. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the source is necessarily self-published but it doesn't seem to be entirely independent either. But I don't think it matters because I don't see anything particularly controversial in this section of the article. 75.243.238.70, is there something specific to which you object? ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Review and Herald is an Adventist publication, therefore very MUCH self-published for an Adventist school... at a bare minimum they're biased and not impartial. It definitely can't be considered an independent 3rd party secondary source. — raekyt 04:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Biased? Maybe. Self-published? No, not unless the university publishes it.
Again, it's a moot point because the section seems entirely uncontroversial. It would be better with more references, particularly indisputably independent ones. But it's a pretty bland "this stuff exists" paragraph without any contentious claims. ElKevbo (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for correctly explaining what "self-published" means. SAU and R&H Publishing are not the same organization. That's why it helps to have knowledgeable editors editing instead of those who don't understand context.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Depends on how you look at it, one part of the church isn't so unconnected from another part. It's like saying Sony's game division isn't the same company as Sony's music division. In some respects that's true, but they're ultimately under the same umbrella. For an uncontroversial statement of facts like this it's irreverent but for other issues they are very much relevant. An Adventist publication shouldn't be considered independent and unconnected from an Adventist university. — raekyt 04:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
A company and a denomination are 2 very different animals. Even though both may be organizations Sony's game division is probably much more in line with Sony's music division than R&H Publishing association is with SAU. Sure they may share a similar philosophy but that's not enough to argued for self-published. An Adventist publication is separate from an Adventist University. Is Christianity Today not a valid source for prominent theologians simply because both may share the same faith? Yes the magazine may have some biases, but as ElKevbo clearly noted it is NOT self-published.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The difference is Christianity Today is not OWNED by the denomination it covers. Review and Herald and SAU share owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.97.152.54 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Fountain that the source is not self-published, and with Elkevbo that the section is not controversial. I oppose the edit request. – Lionel (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The SAU articles should be based primarily on third-party reliable sources. However, self-published SAU sources are allowed in this article about itself. As long as there is no controversy about what they say about themselves. IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Is the Adventist Review a third-party source with respect to Southern Adventist University? The Adventist Review has a careful editorial policy, re:fact checking etc. Non-controversial facts, reports, etc. are reliable. Generally, SDA church journals do not print material considered very controversial within the church. SDA journals take a biased, supportive stance for the church. They cannot be relied upon to provide objective discussions on controversial matters. Basic facts about SDA institutions and representations of Adventist views are generally reliable. IMO DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This section's assertions are not sourced-it needs to be sourced or removed.

Under student life, there is this paragraph:

Many students work to help finance their education. McKee Foods, founded by an alumnus, is located adjacent to the north side of the campus and is an important source of jobs for students within walking distance. McKee is one of the largest employers in Hamilton County.

The two sources are:

As you can see, the sources provided only verify that both McKee and Southern are located in Collegedale, TN and that McKee is a major employer in the area. They do not verify a work study program or that it is an "important source of jobs" for students. The fact that McKee is a major employer also does not seem relevant to the article.

I removed the paragraph as it was not properly supported. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Binksternet, I have no problem with why you removed the paragraph. However, the statement you removed is true. It just needs to be properly sourced. I went to Southern, lived in the community, and because of McKee employment I was able to graduate without owing any tuition. I'm sure you won't mind it being put back in once it can be sources properly. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
With a reliable source yes, otherwise it should stay removed. — raekyt 01:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for this matter? If I "revert" this will I be blocked since I would after all be following WP:BRD?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The consensus seems clear to leave the material out unless it has a source. Readding the material would be a poor move since there is an ongoing discussion here; there would be no room to cower behind WP:BRD given the ongoing discussion and consensus of which you are fully aware. ElKevbo (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Get a source before putting the paragraph back in. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In checking for sources, I have run across an interesting story. In the 1980s Mckee Baking Company had to concern itself with equal rights of employment, etc. They could not help students so much anymore. Mckee sold back to the school the broom shop which could specialize in student labor if owned by the school. It seems that the broom shop is no more. (Anybody know more about this?) signed belatedly, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I edit a number of school articles. I'm not sure this belongs here at all. It's normal for many students to work to support their education and I'm not convinced this belongs in an encyclopedia. It's not mentioned at Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Student life specifically, but that section does start "Student life and university traditions articles are generally not notable unless they are sufficiently unusual that they have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the university" and I'd argue that unless there is something unusual and well covered about this it should not be in the article. I'd say this about any school article. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been, a Seventh Day Adventist. However, I live in Tennessee and I can attest that Collegedale is a small place that is known primarily as the location of two institutions: SAU and McKee Foods. It's my understanding that the relationship between the university and the snack-food maker is not coincidental (note, for example, that SAU's library is "McKee Library" and that the McKee Foods article says that McKee is a NASCAR sponsor, but because it is a SDA company, "From sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, the Little Debbie logos are covered or removed, and the crew wears non-Little Debbie attire"). IMO, it is an unusual relationship and needs to be documented, assuming that one of the myriad editors who is committed to building this article can find a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Indeed, the McKee Foods website says that the company founders met at Southern Junior College (predecessor to SMU) and the McKee Foods web page on company history says that the college recruited the company to move to college property in Collegedale, largely to provide jobs for students:
Officials of their alma mater, now a four-year college called Southern Missionary College, asked if they’d consider relocating to Collegedale. A woodworking shop, which had provided jobs for some of their students, had been destroyed in a fire. They offered to provide the McKees with a building if they would move their business onto college property. Recognizing that this move would be beneficial to both parties, the McKees agreed. With their son Ellsworth running the Dodds Avenue plant, they gradually started up lines at the Collegedale location. By 1957, their entire business was in Collegedale, and it began to be called McKee Baking Company.
--Orlady (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
That's an example of the sort of thing I was thinking about which justifies its inclusion in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Good job, Orlady. This needs to be added ASAP. Btw can you get a pic of the school? – Lionel (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't we find a source that isn't McKee Foods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.97.148.170 (talk • contribs)
It's unlikely that any source exists that is totally independent of both SAU and McKee Foods. However, there are other sources that seem to have bought the story to one degree or another:
Some other interesting items I found: This newspaper article is about the close association of 7th Day Adventists with Collegedale and here's a piece about a Food Network show on McKee Foods. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to add those to the McKee and Collegedale articles?

William Shurtleff, Akiko Aoyagi History of Soybeans and Soyfoods in Canada (1831-2010) 2010 Page771 "located in Collegedale. Founded, owned, and run by Jack McKee (a well respected Seventh-day Adventist), McKee Foods ... Some years ago Sovex Natural Foods sold the rights to Village Market, located near Southern Adventist University, ." In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I can provide photos if anyone has a particular location in mind. And I have only met one student who worked for student in the 5 years I've been in the area and he just interned in their IT dept for a semester. I think the days of students paying for school at McKee are over, but it was very much a part of the earlier generations. (but that's just anecdotal) 216.229.229.94 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's great! The pics have to be free, i.e. taken by yourself. It would be great to have a pic of the Greek looking building upon which the school logo is based. Perhaps McKee Library, the film school.– Lionel (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

School of Nursing

Under school of nursing, the first sentence states that: "The nursing program at Southern Junior College began in 1934."

  • The source provided is this with the following comment: "This is the first year that Southern Junior College lists a Nursing Education instructor. Yearbooks reflect the state of things for the previous year."

I ask that this sentence be removed as the source does not substantiate the statement without using original research, and it is still a rather shaky conclusion (is the yearbook always up to date?!?).

I oppose this request as it uses a valid, verifiable reliable source. If there is any question then perhaps a tweak stating the source within the phrase could be added, but there is no reason to remove this sentence.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The source says no such thing, the only thing the source could be used to say is "1934 was the first year that Southern Junior College had a Nursing Education instructor listed in the Adventist Yearbook." Anything beyond that is original reasearch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.97.196.83 (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a textbook case of OR. I've removed it and another sentence in the same paragraph with the exact same issue. ElKevbo (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
One of the removed sources [1] has valuable info about how they took over the Florida Sanitarium which should be added. How about adding it 69.97.196.83? Oops. You can't. Why don't you register? There's no downside. Well, if you're a sockpuppet there's a big downside. – Lionel (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

School of Nursing ...again

Pursuant to the previous edit request, ElKevbo removed two obvious instances of OR. Unfortunately, Fountainviewkid chose to undo the edit, readding the following sentence:

  • "The nursing program had its first Nursing Education instructor listed in 1934."

The source given is the Adventist Yearbook:

This is unclear, it should either be removed or state clearly where this instructor was listed. Also, I would ask why it is do weight to include when a non-notable instructor got listed in a directory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.46.45 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How about we list the information straight from the Nursing Program's site then? I will go ahead and modify the citation. Sorry about the confusion there.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget the bit about the Florida Sanitorium. (I'm not going to edit the article. Wanna see what it's like to be an IP.)– Lionel (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Segregation

Per this article, we find that "Southern College admitted its first black students in 1968." Perhaps a note could be made somewhere in the article that SAU refused to admit black students for in excess of its first 75 years of existence? This seems like a highly relevant point to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.238.70 (talk • contribs) 13:15, August 26, 2011

Again another controversial edit which attempts to create a negative bias in the mind of the reader. It is much more factual list the date, rather than try to make it sound extreme that Southern "refused to admit black students" for a certain period of time. The same could be said for many other prominent schools that have been around much longer. Are we to say that Harvard went "200 years before it graduated its first black student"? Such a statement is irrelevant, controversial, and inappropriate.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not seeing the necessity for this proposed edit, either. Technically the proposed edit would be more correct but given the history of segregation in the U.S. - especially in the South - it seems like a waste of space to repeat it here and in every other university article. Is there something remarkable or interesting about the segregation or desegregation of this institution? Is there a story to be told here or was this just another institution doing what nearly every institution (shamefully) did at the time? ElKevbo (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
From my understanding SAU was just like every other institution at the time. Many other institutions took a lot longer than 75 years to admit blacks. In some views this could even be considered "progressive" if looking solely at length of time and ignoring historical context. de-segregating in 1968 isn't exactly very remarkable or unusual for colleges in Southern Tennessee.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Not done: The consensus here seems to be that there is not much reason for this edit, so I am officially marking it as answered. Topher385 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The date can be relevant for inclusion int he article, but I do agree this is TN and unless the date wildly differs from the average date for other educational institution in the region for when they started accepting African Americans then nothing else needs mentioned. From the dates of various key points of the period, Civil Rights Act of 1968, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Twenty-fourth Amendment was 1962.Tennessee State University which is a historically black university. University of Tennessee admitted their first black students in 1952 and there is a whole section in their article about civil rights. American Baptist College started as a black college. Vanderbilt University isn't clear when their first black student was admitted, but there is a whole civil rights section, and a part about a black player in their sports in 1966. Tennessee Wesleyan College looks like they admitted black students in 1897src. From just a small sample I looked at 1968 might be a bit late for the state... probably worthy of inclusion of the date AT LEAST? — raekyt 04:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Still seems irrelevant overall unless it is part of a broader context, one which right now doesn't exist.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the date is relevant as an important detail in the school's history, but it does not deserve discussion. Integrating in 1965 was not at all unusual. Note that Maryville College had African American students in the 19th century but was forced by Tennessee state law to become white-only in 1901, and did not admit black students again until after the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the 1950s. Maryville College was unusual in integrating as early as it did. SAU was far more typical. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the precedent? Does Wikipedia list the dates of integration for all schools or only those which are notable? It's relevant a detail at SAU as it is at any other school in the south at the time.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Broader context=its a fundamentalist school in the south which lagged in terms of desegregation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.114.128 (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very much like the same thing Bello Wello said. I do not know if the IP is or is not, the banned user, but it certainly sounds suspicious. As for being "fundamentalist" that is very much a matter of debate. Seventh-day Adventists are not categorized as "fundamentalists" and never have been since they do not believe in "verbal inspiration". As for "lagging" in terms of desegregation...not really. Yes compared to the most public ones, but compared to the average private conservative Christian university in the south it was pretty much average.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Being an Adventist yourself you're hardly partial. I grew up in the Adventist faith, graduated HS from a small 1 room Adventist school, attended SAU and SWAU, but I'm not an Adventist now. So I'm probably not 100% impartial as well. But irregardless the Adventist faith is definitely fringe when it comes to Christianity, and is even classified as a cult by some. The date they first desegregated is probably valid for inclusion. Stating if this was late for the country as a whole would require some reliable sources which we don't have. — raekyt 07:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Being a Roman Catholic and sympathetic to the sentiment that SDA is fringe, I am 100% impartial, and feel that the segregation item should not be included. – Lionel (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So Raeky admits that he/she is an ex-Adventist and obviously biased towards the faith. That explains some of his criticism and edits. Thank-you for your honesty. The fact Raeky discussed this religion as a "cult" and "definitely fringe" demonstrates like unsuitability to be making decisions about it's content. The issue is not whether one is a member of the church or a Roman Catholic like Lionel, since both of us have come to the same conclusion. The issue is whether one can put away the biases of "fringe" accusations which sadly a key editor on here doesn't seem to be able too. I should have guessed considering how negative Raeky has been towards SAU here on the Talk page. Not quite Bello or Hrafn, but pretty darn close.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't biased comments, remarks that some consider it a cult is in the wikipedia page about SDA (and many other sources stating as much can be found on the internet), and the fact that they follow the teachings of Ellen White and attend church on Saturday instead of Sunday, among many other things, is why it would be fringe in mainstream christian denominations. Those are inarguable facts. "unsuitability to be making decisions about it's content" is complete bullshit though and I'll definitely be sticking around, so keep your biased WP:OWN edits within the strict confines of established policy. — raekyt 14:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • FRINGE is an interesting label. A Salvation Army officer, and associate of mine, noted how Adventists have joined the mainstream. "The SDA denomination will be more mainstream than many of us in a few years," he observed. Adventist appreciation of Jesus as saviour is certainly mainstream. The SDA Sabbath belief is FRINGE with respect to mainstream Christianity. Public Health concepts of Adventist are quite mainstream. As are family life teachings, etc. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
C'mon Fountainviewkid, tone it down — you're coming pretty close to violating WP:NPA with accusations about his "unsuitability to be making decisions about it's content". He has an opinion different from yours. That's it. Each and every editor here — you, me, Raeky, Donald, Lionel, Kenatipo, etc. — has some kind of bias based upon our own experiences. That doesn't disqualify any of us unless there's a legimate WP:COI. Ideally an article should be written from the facts and editors' individual bias should not be apparent, but I realize, unfortunately, that isn't always the case. I realize your past experiences with BelloWello may cause you to be emotional about this article, but for your own good, try to keep that in check. Mojoworker (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty close to violating WHAT Mojo????? WP:NPA? Really? After I call out another editor because he finally admits his bias and attacks an organization he is an ex-disgruntled member of? I truly do believe that his attacks do make him sound "unsuitable" for reaching consensus on here. It has NOTHING to do with his opinion Mojo. Remember an SDA and a RCC have the same opinion. Rather it's his admitted extreme bias against Seventh-day Adventism and articles such as this one. Of course he will be sticking around so he can try and do to SAU what Bello was never able to. There's a right way and wrong way to handle our biases. That is why I personally stay away from editing articles that I have a negative attitude/bias towards and focus on those which if I have a positive bias, I also have knowledge. Unfortunately Wikipedia is a place where Ex-anything can come and insert all kinds of negative junk information about whatever organization a person doesn't like (i.e. segregation from 50 years ago). I'm sorry but I'm extremely suspicious of those who want to add negative material or take out positive material on articles about organizations where there is a clear NEGATIVE bias. Yes positive bias isn't great either, but it's less dangerous for wiki in the long run. It's these kind of people that make me about to join the "ex-wiki editor" club. If i get blocked it will only make that decision easier. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about making everything look good and never showing bad stuff. We have fancy policies like WP:NPOV which prevents that. Wikipedia isn't a marketing tool for an organization. If they have bad things that can be backed up by reliable sources then WP:NPOV dictates that they get covered so long as you also follow WP:DUE. I don't have a "grudge" against SDA or SAU, your just making assumptions and yes you are dangerously close to violating WP:NPA. Whats good about wikipedia is that there is always someone to balance out people like you who if they had their way would turn wikipedia into a glowing perfect marketing tool and hide anything they don't like. Luckily we have sensible and intelligent administrators and founders who saw fit to establish policy to prevent that. I would make a strong suggestion, FVK, to back off the personal attacks and assumptions about my character or motives, I don't think you can afford another banning. — raekyt 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes policies like WP:NPOV, which ironically I would argue certain other editors would be closer to a violation than myself, simply since I have no direct connection to the article here. I have never attended SAU or had any affiliation beyond simply knowing people who have gone there. Attending there of course doesn't violate the policy, but it does make one closer to doing such an action. You may say you don't have a "grudge" against SAU or SDA, but your previous statements certainly sound very much along those lines. The way you characterized your former schools and religion sound suspiciously like a grudge. While it may not be a grudge, I have yet to see you say anything or do anything on here that I would argue is positive or even neutral towards SAU. I might also argue that you are coming close to violating WP:NPA by accusing me of using this article's edits as a "marketing tool". What if I have the same concerns as you do about SAU, I just believe they do not pass WP:DUE and WP:NPOV? How dare you accuse me of doing the very same thing you yourself may be doing. I am happy to allow both the positive and the negative, but the negative must be done in a balanced manner and with consensus from those on multiple sides of the spectrum. Remember Rakey has a stronger connection to SAU than I do. I have as much reason to defend SAU as I do to defend any other Adventist college, which if you look at my editing history you will not see. Luckily we have sensible and intelligent administrators who have decided that these kind of edits due not fit the policies and hence of decided "No" on the edit request. I would suggest Raeky that you stop playing the pot calling the kettle black. If you don't want me questioning your editing motives, I suggest you stop questioning mine. I don't want wiki turning into a tabloid of much negative information with the deletionists also being able to remove the positive. And thanks for dredging up my past history with Bello. You are such a fair-minded and civil editor just as I am. Banning would only make it easier for me to make my decision to get out now, and let Wiki continue losing editors much as the admins have been mourning. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Whine all you want, but I'm not going anywhere. You also need to learn how to use indention, since you seem to screw that up often. This shall be my last "off-topic" comment on this subject on this talk page, if you wish to cry and complain that a non-sympathetic editor is now watching this page and it's edits do so on user talk pages not the article, since this is again against policy. So, I'd caution you not to continue this on this talk page. — raekyt 17:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
That's fine you're not going anywhere. You are free to allow your past experience in Adventism to shape your editing on here and addition of less than positive information. I would remind you that "it takes two to tango". You are not absolved of your blame simply because you think you are, or because of your supposed accusations against me about irrelevant items. I am merely noting that you have publicly admitted extreme biases against organizations which with this article is affiliated with, and therefore it leads me to question your POV, as you do mine. I don't care whether an editor is "sympathetic" as long as they are fair, balanced, and don't appear to act negatively based on past experience.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that FVK has made his intentions clear: "You are free to allow your past experience in Adventism to shape your editing on here and addition of less than positive information." implying that his intentions are to only add "positive information." This seems to buttress observations previously made by this editor.

May I ask why an article that includes such (sometimes unsourced) historical minutia like "People interested in the college's success bought surrounding properties and donate them to the institution," "The college built the girls' dorm first. The girls moved in before it was finished even before there was any heating, doors or chairs. They used "curtains for doors, sat upon their trunks for chairs — any way to get along."" "In their official announcement of the name change, the Board of Trustees of Southern Missionary College explained that a shorter name would help popularize it." and many other pieces of minutia cannot include a reliably sourced sentence on when it was desegregated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.54.101 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that FVK has NOT made his intentions clear. Saying another is free to post less than positive information, does not automatically mean that those who post else wise will only post positive items. FVK spoke only about another editor and not about his own editing. There is no implication that FVK was only going to add "positive information". There are many plans where FVK has added "neutral information" such as a hyperlink or date. Are such items to be considered "positive" information"? Maybe in the extreme loosest sense of the term one could imagine such an idea. Observations made about "this editor" should take into consideration that FVK's philosophy is one of staying away (unlike other editors on here) from those articles he has a negative bias towards and focusing only on positive OR NEUTRAL items. Unfortunately some have the impression that if one isn't totally turning an article into a Daily Show satire then one isn't being discriminating enough. That's one opinion, and a method FVK rejects.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 75.243.54.101: The "minutia" you have mentioned was put in by me. Am I the only one who see value to the little things of history? All the facts given can be properly sourced, if they haven't been. Each of the facts have historical interest, IMO. People reading these minor facts gain a depth of understanding which the "big stuff" just can't do. Anyway, thought I would explain why the material was added. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Sir, I don't have a problem with adding sourced history, but I have a hard time understanding why a reliably sourced sentence noting when Southern was integrated cannot be included in the article when this minutia that is not sourced remains in the article. The date Southern integrated and the amount of time it was segregated is far more important to gaining a "depth of understanding" than these items (with no judgement on their value). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.194.202 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that the integration information is important to SAU's story especially in comparison to relatively nearby Oakwood University. With current human rights legislation, I presume that both these institutions cannot legally discriminate based on race. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's always best to source anything you add to an article, and things that could be even remotely controversial NEEDS a source. Anything that doesn't have a source faces the risk of being removed. — raekyt 01:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course the article should say when the first black student was accepted, or the first graduated, but the source should be more reliable than a blog. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, Sir, I believe a WP:NEWSBLOG is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.194.202 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Southern's racial composition can be compared to Oakwood's. Tennessee and Alabama are quite close, relatively speaking. Because Oakwood focused on Black Adventists, Southern has not, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This assertion "that SAU refused to admit black students for in excess of its first 75 years of existence" is completely misleading. In fact the source says "Black students did not seek to attend white Adventist colleges." 75.243.238.70: how did you arrive at "refused" from "did not seek"? I may have to agree with Fountainviewkid: this seems to go beyond just a POV issue. Is there an agenda here? – Lionel (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your quote is misleading. The actual sentence is as follows: "Black students did not seek to attend white Adventist colleges as much because Oakwood was the school of the Regional Conferences (Southern College admitted its first black students in 1968)." If that wasn't enough, this relevant quote from a scholarly book may shed more light: "Leiske integrated Southern Missionary College and authorized the hiring of nonwhite faculty. He also allowed the black presidents of the regional conferences to become voting members of the institution's governing board." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.85.31 (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has already been answered. I suggest keeping it that way.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Samuel G. London book to which the IP linked appears to be a great source for information about the breakdown of what was obviously a difficult segregation problem at Southern. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
While it may be a great book this is still WP:UNDUE as it is not common to list the date of desegregation of colleges here on Wikipedia unless there is something significant or unusual. The desegregation of SAU does not appear to be anymore unusual than other colleges in the South around that time.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
That is a losing argument, the one about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You could just as well put integration information into every one of the articles about previously all-white colleges in the Deep South, to fix the disparity you notice. Building the encyclopedia is not accomplished by deletion.
If Southern is mentioned in reliable sources as having a problem with the process of integration, the information can be and should be brought to the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making the decision ahead of time. This is not about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes of course we could add information into all of the college in the south to fix the disparity but there's no precedent for that. Until Wikipedia decides to start doing such an action, this information is WP:UNDUE and should not be included in the article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I see the segregation problem as interesting and relevant, no less so than when the McKee Library was opened or who founded the School of Art or, especially, how Southern was drawn into wider controversy in the 1980s regarding changing attitudes toward Ellen G. White. Segregation involves changing attitudes over a wider social stage, but the experience of specific persons and specific places is always worth describing. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not unique and there's no precedent for it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You're holding on to the weak argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, like tying yourself to the mast in a storm. I'm afraid that argument doesn't protect you from relevant material that is well cited. The Samuel G. London book has good additions that can be made from it, and they should be made. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Bink, there's no precedent for such an addition in other Wikipedia articles. If you want to try and create one you're free to, but right now we should stick with policy and consensus.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What policy and what consensus? What is your basis? I see WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
What policy? The policy of being consistent across articles. I don't remember the name of it, but it basically says that how you treat one article is how you should treat a similar article. We don't list these dates on the other colleges and shouldn't list it here. As for consensus, that's definitely at the very least a guideline here on Wikipedia. There is no consensus to add this information, and it has already been rejected previously.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The thing you are referring to is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is not policy, not at all! Likewise, there is no consensus here to keep segregation information out of the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet, what do you propose adding to the article from the London book? ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll work on some text when I get a chance. First: spend some time out in the sunshine. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick run through of various public and private universities in the South. The public ones were mixed in their mention of racial integration (some mention it, some don't). With regards to the private universities very few mention it unless it was extreme significant (i.e. Bob Jones). Southern seems like it would fit in the articles which don't mention it, or at the very least don't do so prominently.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the survey, but conclusions drawn from your research are still part of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; a failing argument. London shows Southern to have had a significant problem with integration. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No these conclusions provide precedent for consensus from other articles as ElKevbo discussed below. Southern's integration issue doesn't appear to be any different than the other schools and therefore it should be treated as such.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The conclusions you made entrench your position regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but that position is irrelevant—the real battle is at WP:UNDUE. The decision about what parts of segregation/integration can go in this article are solely about whether the material is undue weight for this article. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The conclusions I made are based on Wikipedia precedent and consensus. If there is a precedent for not including integration information then we should follow it. As I noted private universities like Southern don't seem to have it included. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The Clemson University article includes "In 1963, the school admitted its first African-American student". And for Auburn University: "Auburn was racially segregated prior to 1963, with only white students being admitted.". For Duke University, "In 1963 the Board of Trustees officially desegregated the undergraduate college." And those were just the first three that popped into my head and I looked at — either that's an incredible coincidence, or there's more precedent than you think FVK. And yes, I realize those are not private schools, but it certainly appears the precedent exists in a number of articles to include that information. Why do you think the SAU article is different — simply because it's a private school?. Mojoworker (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Again some of the universities have it some of them don't. University of Florida and Appalachian State are just two of the several that didn't have that information. It depends where you're looking, but as I said PUBLIC colleges seemed to be more likely to have information on integration, but PRIVATE colleges didn't unless it was a place like Bob Jones. The precedent exists that if it's a public school it might be included, but schools like SAU don't seem to have included it. I'm working on a detailed listing which should be able to help us out. If I find that a large amount of private colleges like SAU include that information then I'll be happy to support that kind of information in this article IF done in a neutral manner.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I just did a run through of the top schools in the South that are just like Southern based on this link and out of the top 10 the only one that even mentioned integration and race was Tuskegee University for reasons which are pretty obvious. All the others including Ouachita Baptist University, Florida Southern College, etc. did not mention it. Additionally there is a school known as Covenant College in SAU's backyard which I would argue might be a decent precedent to follow. It also didn't include information on race and integration. I will keep looking but preliminary results show that schools like SAU don't have such information here on Wikipedia.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Forbes seems to confirm the same thing with private colleges here. This is their list of the 10 best private colleges in the South, none of which mention the issue on their Wikipedia page including Wofford College, Davidson College, or even Wake Forest University. I'm running a check on the public colleges now.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
First, I think that you're building a much better case that those other articles are lacking important information than you are building one that information should be omitted from this article. Second, if there is unique and interesting information specific to this institution, it should be included in this article regardless of what other articles contain.
I reiterate my stance: Mentioning the date of integration is non-controversial and a very good idea. If there is specific information unique to the desegregation of this institution from reliable sources, it should be included; that's why I am asking Binksternet above for specific suggestions on content to include. ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I just looked through the Forbes list on public colleges and found a few instances where integration is mentioned. If specific information is unique to the institution it should be included if there is a precedent for it. From my research I have found private universities definitely don't have it mentioned and neither do most public universities. Out of the Forbes public list found here University of Virginia was the only one that really discussed it. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill had a mention about it with this line "including the racial integration of the student body", but gave no details on the date. The Virginia Military Institute did mention the date when the first black student was admitted in one small NPOV line. From everything I can see Wikipedia articles do not mention the date of integration, with the only exceptions being a few prominent public universities.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
What this seems to indicate is that the larger/more developed articles list it and that the less developed articles do not have it yet-that is not an argument not to have it.
That's a very convenient argument to make. If there is information that I want to add that doesn't fit the normal pattern all I have to do is argue that the pattern is flawed and that all it needs is more development. Sorry but that's not the way Wiki works.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The pattern is that the big public universities have had more edits made to them, more work put into them, and they contain the information-that is the goal, a well developed article. I must agree with Binksternet that you have done more to provide a rationale to add the information to the articles you bring up than to provide a rational to omit the well sourced information from this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.28.107 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes and several of the big pubic universities don't mention anything about integration let alone the date. Also some of the private universities have decently large articles (far more extensive than Southern's) and yet nothing on the subject. The rationale has been provided. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this should be included even though the precedent is not to do so.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no such precedance. Please stop arguing by assertion. This is highly relevant information about the history of the school, and you have not provided a rationale to leave it out, as Binksternet and ElKevbo have noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.28.107 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes there are precedents. I am only asserting that which can be found through research. You can say what you want, but articles just like Southern demonstrate that this type of information does not yet have its place. If Southern were a major public university like Auburn or Georgia that might be different, but alas it is not. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
See Raeky, ElKevbo and Binksternet's comments. Your argument are painfully shallow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.110.68 (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Adventist_University/Archive_8&oldid=1083535014"