Talk:Houghton University/Archive 1

Removed massively COI comment, going to fine-toothed-comb

There was a paragraph in line 53 that said "Houghton College will also constantly check and edit this page so that it accurately represents the College." This is a massive violation of Wikipedia: conflict of interest, specifically that "If...you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing, then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)." Houghton gets benefits in enrollment and publicity from putting favourable spin on their page, and should not be editing it at all, but rather posting to the talk page to mention and cite any inaccuracies. Further, while Houghton students or staff alone might or might not be subject to WP:COI here, Houghton as an institution (which is what was discussed in line 53) is decidedly in the wrong by unilaterally editing this page except where VERY well sourced. Huadpe (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HoughtonHighlanders.jpg

Image:HoughtonHighlanders.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I added a cleanup tag because this need some cleanup to meet WP:UNIGUIDE guidelines and standards. I'm more than willing to do it myself, but I thought I'd give other a change to check the 'GUIDE and contribute to the article's improvement, too. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputing information on this page

The last portion of the history section contains information related to Shirley Mullen that is questionable in its accuracy and neutrality. I'm not an experienced user of Wikipedia, so I don't know the best way to address this. I will disclose that I am an employee of Houghton College and am acting on the college's behalf. Ctetta (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The information is not directly related to Shirley Mullen as a person. Would it be better to recast the changes as merely occurring during her tenure, or are there actual questions of accuracy related to the points of fact? Powers ^T 19:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the information is false, some is written in a non-nuetral way. There is an unfounded correlation made. We suspect that the section in question was written by someone with an agenda. Ctetta (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is something specific you want done, you're going to have to be more specific with what the problems are. Here are some links you might like to peruse, if you are officially representing the college: Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise), Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Powers ^T 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

These are the specific problems with this page.

Since her arrival in 2006, President Shirley Mullen, '76, as worked to reimagine Houghton as a traditional Liberal Arts College. This is untrue

These efforts have included: Lifting the ban on social dancing, in place since the inception of the school; The ban on dancing was lifted, but was not part of any effort to reimagine Houghton.

Attempting to change the traditional ban on beverage alcohol, an attempt that trustees vetoed; This is untrue.

Inviting the pro-gay group Soulforce to campus for a day of seminars and lectures on the idea that Gays can be Christians and should be accepted as such by Evangelicals; This group was not invited by President Mullen or any other campus official.

Replacing the traditional motto "Founded on the Rock" and other Christo-centric language with more moderate "Faith Based" materials; This is untrue.

Leaving the NAIA athletic organization for the more secular NCAA (see above) which entailed changing the long-time prohibition on Sunday athletic events for Houghton teams; It is true that Houghton is applying for admission in the NCAA, but it is not part of an effort to reimagine Houghton.

Planning to build a $12 Million facility for many of these new teams while simultaneously cutting academic programs This implies that money is being used for athletics instead of academics. Houghton received a $12 million dollar donation specifically for the building of an athletic facility. No money is being used for this project that would have otherwise gone to academics.
and planning to convert an all-female residence hall into a unisex facility. This is untrue

The result of these efforts has been a decline in enrollment and the sale of two extension campuses,one in West Seneca, NY and the other at Star Lake in the Adirondacks. Although it is true that enrollment has declined, there is no evidence that it is a result of any of the factual items listed here. Ctetta (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the recent addition that contained all of the above items, since the data was unsourced and is now contested. Powers ^T 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

User jwillard1883 reinstated the contested and unsourced information. I have removed it. I'm almost certain that it will be replaced. Ctetta (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As I predicted, user jwillard1883 has replaced the contested and unsourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctetta (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

User jwillard 1883 has replaced the disputed content. Many of the items are still unsourced. The four citations added do not support the content that is written.

Inviting the pro-gay group Soulforce to campus for a day of seminars and lectures on the idea that Gays can be Christians and should be accepted as such by Evangelicals (http://www.soulforce.org/resources/what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality/); This link says nothing about Soulforce's visit to the college. In fact, Soulforce came to Houghton without invitation. http://www.houghton.edu/news/equality_riders/

Leaving the NAIA athletic organization for the more secular NCAA (http://www.houghtonstar.com/news/college-weighs-competing-interests-in-ncaa-bid-1.1976137) which entailed changing the long-time prohibition on Sunday athletic events for Houghton teams; It is true that Houghton is applying for admission in the NCAA, but this item is listed as evidence that there is an effort to reimagine Houghton. This citation provides no evidence to support that intention.

Planning to build a $12 Million facility for many of these new teams while simultaneously cutting academic programs (http://www.houghton.edu/news/Kerr-Pegula-Center/); This sentence still implies that money is being used for athletics at the expense of academics. The citation provides no new information to support that contention.

The result of these efforts has been a decline in enrollment and the sale of two extension campuses,one in West Seneca, NY and the other at Star Lake in the Adirondacks (http://www.houghtonstar.com/news/star-lake-and-west-seneca-campuses-have-buyers-1.982843) This citation provides no evidence to support the supposition that declining enrollment is a result of an effort to reimagine Houghton. Ctetta (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

More unsourced additions

This edit introduced different text that, while more positive than the text disputed above, is equally unsourced. We require reliable sources to back up statements in our article, so that others can verify their accuracy. The text added strikes me as biased in the opposite direction from the negative text previously added, so I removed it. Please discuss here before re-adding it. Powers ^T 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

References don't support the assertions

These statements are not adequately supported by the references.

One of President Mullen's goals has been to refashion Houghton as a traditional liberal arts college. [6] This reference says nothing to support this statement.

The West Seneca Campus was the primary setting for Houghton’s adult degree completion program in management, called P.A.C.E, until earlier this year when it was sold to head off a cash flow crisis [7]. This reference does not support the use of the phrase "head off a cash flow crisis".

he "Flats" apartment building will be closed for the 2012-13 academic year in an effort to cut costs and avoid further layoffs due to a financial crisis. [9]. Once again, this reference does not support the assertion that there is a financial crisis.

Ctetta (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the first two assertions are unsupported by the cited references and I've removed them. The third assertion, however, does seem to be adequately supported by the source. If you object to the specific wording, please feel free to propose something different. But the full context of the closure as described in the source does appear to describe a severe financial situation. This article also discusses the budget cuts in the context of financial challenges at the college. ElKevbo (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this belong in here?

It seems to me that this is outside of the focus of this entry.

Concerns have surfaced about the source of these funds, Pegula's long-time commitment to hydrofracking. According to reporting in the Buffalo News, Pegula's East Resources had a "middling record of complying with environmental regulations in Pennsylvania" on issues of hydrofracking. The Buffalo News did its own analysis of a study made by The Pennsylvania Land Trust Association from January 2008 to August 2010, from which it concluded that East Resource had maintained an average, to slightly above average number of violations per well. This included several noteworthy violations like May 2010 when several dozen beef cattle were quarantined, for the first time in the history of natural gas drilling in PA, over concern that they had drunk spilled toxic wastewater from an East Resources drilling site. [13] Ctetta (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it seems to be undue weight. Powers ^T 20:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A brief mention is certainly appropriate but more than that would require much stronger sourcing and relevance to this particular article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Alumnus" Charles M. Vest

An editor is insisting that Charles M. Vest be listed as an alumnus of this college. However, the cited source doesn't mention this college at all. Am I missing something here? ElKevbo (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see. Powers ^T 23:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tettac is not the same as ctetta

Just making sure that it's clear that the person making edits to this page as Tettac is not me. I have previously identified myself as a college employee and I have refrained from making significant edits to the page except where unsourced and previously removed material was reinstated.Ctetta (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

National Make A Difference Day

I contend that the following sentence is trivial and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article as it adds little value for readers: "Houghton students were among the 400 who participated in National Make A Difference Day, October 27, 2012. " Another editor, however, has reverted my removal. Can he or she please explain his or her rationale? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication of talk page discussion about this edit so there should not be a request for a third opinion. Please wait for there to be discussion before requesting one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I should also engage in an edit war or that this material must remain because another editor is willing to edit war and I am not?

The other editor appears to be avoiding discussion but willing to edit war. So there needs to be further input and 3O is a very good place to start since this only involves two editors. 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It has only been a couple of days. Consider leaving a note on the editor's talk page if you wish for that editor to engage in discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I, like TDA, am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I concur with his removal of the listing and would note that all forms of dispute resolution at Wikipedia, except perhaps RFC, require prior talk page discussion. But at the same time I recognize the situation this creates for good faith editors. You might want to know that there is some sympathy for the position that continuing to revert after being asked to discuss a matter, but failing to do so, is considered by some to be a blockable offense, see a discussion here. You can also try an RFC, for that matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So now two different editors have refused to offer an opinion on this very simple matter but are instead insisting that I go through some bullshit bureaucratic process just to obtain an opinion from a third editor (which, ostensibly, is what WP:3O is supposed to do)? 14:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not what it is supposed to do. Per the project instructions: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." What 3O is supposed to do is to issue third opinions for disputes which have come to a deadlock on the article talk page. That's not this one.

And while this is not a Third Opinion, I'll agree that the information in question is both pretty trivial and perhaps in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, and you might also want to take a look at and consider the possible effects of the first sentence of the second bullet point of this section of the consensus policy. (Feel free to respond, "That'll do, Pig. That'll do.") — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued discussion. Based on your input, the lack of input from our colleague, and the pointer to WP:CON you mentioned, I've removed the statement. Additionally, the statement did not match up with the cited source which itself is sufficient grounds for removal. 22:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Houghton College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060904014808/http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/star/issues/Oct%207%202005.pdf to http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/star/issues/Oct%207%202005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)