Jump to content

Talk:Ohio Wesleyan University/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Image:RedBlackCap.jpg the copyright needs to be established as there is a claim that the image is copyright(tag on page) and used under fair use, and a GFDL tag on the image page as well. Also Image:Sherwood.JPG fair use rationale on an image tagged as US Federal Government which are PD images also needs to be addressed. I fixed a typo on an image description besides that I thinking this looks ready for a run at FA once the image problems are fixed, I'll come back again in a couple of days for another look. Gnangarra 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A strange sentence

Overall, the article is looking great, but there's still work to be done. Specifically, I found the following sentence a little unclear:

"Most students cite the school's policy on off-campus housing as one of the "worst things" about Ohio Wesleyan due to a resulting shortage of people who desire to reside in off-campus housing due to the off-campus lottery cap."

I'm not sure what this means. Is it that students who want to move off-campus can't because they don't believe enough of their friends will also win in the lottery? If so, we can make that more clear. — BryanD 04:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is captured in the second part of the sentence: "due to a resulting shortage of people who desire to reside in off-campus housing due to the off-campus lottery cap". The number of people wanting to live off-campus is greater than the number of students allowed to live off-campus by the school. I hope this makes it clearer. LaSaltarella 07:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"youngest of Ohio Five"

I was trying to find information to justify changing the lead paragraph back to reading the "youngest" of the Ohio Five, when I discovered that OWU is neither the most recently founded (Wooster was founded in 1866) nor the most recent member to join (as far as I can tell, there was no official "joining", or if there was, all five joined in 1995). Does anyone know where this came from? — BryanD 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

To be honest, I think Alumni is the worst section in the article—it is too long. Surely the subarticle covers (or should cover) everything in this section? I suggest the section only cover the diversity of alumni, in a sentence, and that it be followed with two or three examples of notable alumni. Otherwise, the section becomes a collage of short biographies that, together, are boring to read.

I'd do more on this article, but my city is in the middle of a heat wave, and I don't have air conditioning. Rintrah 16:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Serial comma

Consider the serial comma. Americans almost universally use it; its omission looks horrible; hence, the article should use it throughout. That is, every list set off by commas should have a comma after the penultimate item. I am too lazy to put it in everywhere myself. Rintrah 17:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Article History

Since there were a lot of templates piling up at the top of the page, I went ahead and replaced them with the {{ArticleHistory}} template. I made my best guess as to what was out there, but saw references other peer reviews which I couldn't locate. If someone knows the links, feel free to add them to the template, or, simply list the dates, type of actions, and links here, and I'll go ahead and update it. :) --Elonka 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Administration

The paragraph on the current president is too long, and, besides, is covered in the linked article (or should be). Please trim this section to make it more interesting. Rintrah 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments / suggestions

I am glad to see the article is much improved since I last carefully looked at it in Peer Review. I have some suggestions for improvement and questions.

Image suggestions: Is it necessary to have two pictures of University Hall (both of which give the date it was built)? I like the second, springtime one better. I have asked this before too, but do you really need two pictures of Branch Rickey (I prefer the picture of him with Jackie Robinson, you could then put someone else in the alumni gallery). I also like alternating between left and right picture alignments - this is done well at the top of the article, not so well towards the bottom. I also note that there are almost no pictures of people on campus except the president and the lacrosse team - could you find more images with students or faculty / staff or both in them?

Be specific: Be specific in dates and avoid generalities. For example in the Campus section, we read "Many facilities have been constructed in the last two years, with substantial benefit to science, art, and athletic programs on campus." I presume the new science building is included in this, but it was built in 2004, now three years ago. Why not say "New facilities built since 2004 include the Conrades-Wetherell Science Center (2004), the XYZ Fine Art building (date), and ABC athletics field (date)." Or since 2001? The specifics take about as much space and tell more.

Avoid repetition / redundancy: I searched for Branch Rickey in the article. I agree he is an important person and alum, but do you really need to say what he did four times (plus a fifth mention of his name with his picture in the gallery)? I can perhaps see two of these (one being the Rickey-Robinson photo), but not all four. The quotes are:

  • The campaign is named after Branch Rickey, class of 1904, who broke the racial barrier in professional baseball.[64]
  • On October 23, 1945, Branch Rickey, an OWU graduate, officially signed a contract with Jackie Robinson for the Brooklyn Dodgers. [photo caption]
  • Others, too, have fought racism. Branch Rickey, an alumnus, broke the racial barrier in baseball.[141]
  • Branch Rickey (1904) was a baseball manager known for signing Jackie Robinson as the first African-American in Major League Baseball.[205]


I will have more comments on the History section next. I hope this helps. Ruhrfisch 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, this is really helpful! Thank you, Ruhrfisch! I have several questions. I thought about the Branch Rickey image and I think we need to remove one of them and replace it with another alumni image just as you suggested. I will do this when I get more time. Regarding your second comment, which section do you think the students/faculty image will fit in? Both the specificity and redundancy issues will be addressed, they are very helpful and easy to fix suggestions. Thanks again! LaSaltarella 08:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess I would have to see the picture to be sure - If you move the Rickey-Robinson picture elsewhere (since neither BR nor JR were OWU students at the time), there are several pictures in the OWU activism article that show actual students protesting (although the Vietnam era one has an odd license for a picture from the 1970s). I am pretty busy in real life, but still have some comments / questions on the history section to add. Take care, Ruhrfisch 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

White and Male

I will make the challenge to User:LaSaltarella here that I made on my talk page. Most schools/universities have only had white males as their president. Do I like it? No. Racism and Sexism exist and it is a shame that they do. It is a shame that it has only been in the past 20-40 years that non-whites and women have had any chance of major leadership positions. It is also a shame that some institutions (such as the NFL) have to put quotas to try to push for more equality in the leadership ranks. But the fact that an individual institution hasn't had a non-white male is not in and of itself newsworthy. How many professional football teams have never had a black head coach? Do any of the team cites mention that fact? How many fortune 500 companies have never had a non-white male as CEO? Do any of those cites mention that fact? How many colleges and universities have never had a non-white male as their president? Do any of them mention that fact? How many states have never had a non-white male as Governor? Do any of the state pages mention that fact? So here is my challenge to you 1) Find me a page for a university/fortune 500 company/NFL team where a random fact such as this is thrown in when describing the president/CEO/coach or 2) goto a University page (perhaps University of Oklahoma) and add a comment that only white males have been president. I guarantee that it will be reverted!

Now, if the issue is a controversial issue that is getting media attention (outside of a school newpaper) at a specific institution, then it may deserve a section discussing the controversy. The fact that a disproportionate number of head coaches in the NFL are white is news, the fact that the Denver Bronco's have never had a black head coach isn't.Balloonman 08:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:MethodistColleges

There have been some discussions regarding the title of Template:MethodistColleges and the name of its related category. This template appears to have been the subject of some dispute here. There also appears to have been some "dummy accounts" created primarily to remove the template from this page. Please avoid confusing the discussion by adding to it with a sock puppet account. Please discuss here: Template talk:MethodistColleges. Thanks! -MrFizyx 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more that this template belongs here. The Methodist Church recognizes OWU as an affiliated university. OWU recognizes the same affiliation. It isn't something that can be rationally debated.Balloonman 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsectarian?

The lead claims, "It was founded in 1842 by Methodist leaders and Central Ohio residents as a non-sectarian institution." First, I find it hard to believe that people would unite together to from a "non-something". Second, the word "nonsectarian" appears nowhere in the owu official website nor in other literature describing the University. Further, the designation, nonsectarian, appears to be in some contradiction with fact. OWU maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church. (I notice that the section, "Years of change, 1930-1984" discuses the evolution of the affiliation in more detail, but the details of the source, "Burtchaell" are missing[see note below])

There must be some way to reconcile the school's institutional affiliation with the fact that it is today a very pluralistic multi-cultural, multi-denominational university and to do so without rewriting history. Perhaps something like this: "It was founded in 1842 by Methodists. Although the Universty maintains an active affiliation with the United Methodist Church, the daily life of the campus is much the same as a non-sectarian institution welcoming persons of all religious faiths and denominations." -MrFizyx 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Therein lies my criticism of some of the editors of this page... any reference to the Methodist church or the history therein is attacked and condemned... despite the fact that the university as an institution discusses it. I think the problem is that some people (here) see the words "affiliated with the methodist church" and believe that means that it is a "religious school" or Bible college. It isn't. It never has been. But an affiliation doesn't mean that the religious group controls/dictates the activities at the school or that people have to accept those principles. The school is, despite the wishes of some who were vocal in the debate last year, affiliated with the UMC. But therein is where the nonsectarian nature comes in. Being methodist is not a requirement nor expectation. Here is my question, and this would be a real test for the above statement, but was Church attendence ever mandatory at OWU? If so, then the above statement may not be valid. If it wasn't, then I have no problem with the statement that it was nonsectarian.Balloonman 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The second sentance is in the present tense. I don't see why a possible (ancient) history of required church attendance would form a contradiction. Certianly you wouldn't need that detail in the lead. -MrFizyx 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If the school required church attendence when it was first founded, then that would a contradiction to the claim that it was founded as a nonsectarian institution. If it didn't require it then, that supports the statement that it was nonsectarian at its origins.Balloonman 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You are giving some support to the orignal statement, not commenting on my replacement. -MrFizyx 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This article implies that some sort of mandatory chapel attendance was required until 1962 (for the first couple decades it was 13 times a week!). -MrFizyx 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I completely agree with you, the claim that it was nonsectarian at first needs to be cited or eliminated. The fact that students were allowed to attend any local church on Sunday's does not alleviate the school sponsored activies (with required seating) on the other days of the week.Balloonman 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The "nonsectarian" description has been in this article for years, long before sources were added. It appears again in the Founding section in a sentance that is attributed to three sources. Two sources are online and give no such description, the third, by E.E. White's 1876 A History of Education in the State of Ohio seems an unlikely candidate as well. The description has also been copied to the History of Ohio Wesleyan University article without attribution. While I think there are very few schools affiliated with mainline protestant churches that one would call "sectarian", nonsectarian implies non-affiliated which is inaccurate and therefore needs to be corrected. -MrFizyx 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: If the following is the missing source, please add details to the article. You only need this the first time you use it as a "<ref>": James Tunstead Burtchaell, C.S.C., The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges & Universities from their Christian Churches, Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K., William B. Eerdmans, 1998. -MrFizyx 15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, someone is on top of this. I now see the "References" section; it would be good if the "Notes" could be consolidated, as has been mentioned elsewhere. -MrFizyx 18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

loose historical affiliation?

Under the heading Years of change, 1930-1984, Ohio Wesleyan's current status is described as a "loose historical affiliation". This seems to contradict Wesleyan's catalog which simply describes an "active affiliation". The "loose" description is true in the sense that all university-mainline church affiliations are "looser" now than in the 1800s or 1950s. It is, however, misleading since Wesleyan's ties are not "loose" when compared objectively to similar schools.

This language was first added here by what appears to be a sock puppet account. The wording is not reflective of the source given then and I doubt that such wording is used in the source currently attribted (Burtchaell 1998). We should double check this and similar claims. Any dispute about the affiliation should be resolved promptly so that the article can be stabalized long before it appears on the main page (as has been requested for May 10th). -MrFizyx 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Methodist affiliation

As an editor who has been instrumental along with many other seasoned WP editors to bringing this page to a featured status level, I do not have a "position" on your current initiative regarding this page. However, another experienced WP user alerted me on my talk page three months ago to stay out of drama on Wikipedia. Therefore, I will refrain to get involved in your discussion here. I think any controversial information is best decided by the sources given. Personally, I wouldn't use any qualifications in reference to other users, as I see some have already done so. My sense is that this aggravates conflicts more than it resolves them, especially on issues that are controversial regardless of the school but are controversial in general as well (i.e. religion). I was able to get a hold of Burtchaell's book awhile back. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the issue of affiliation. I have to agree with the current page's description, Burtchaell's description, of "loose historical affiliation". The book traces out the affiliation, in many dimensions: number of Methodist students, number of trustees, donations by UMC, language in the university catalog. I suggest you take a look at it. 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaSaltarella (talk • contribs)

LaSaltarella, Thanks for the suggestion regarding Burtchaell's book, I've located a copy, but really haven't yet had time to take a look. My first impression is that it is scholarly, but that he is also writing to support the thesis implied by the title.
Regarding the other issue. If other editors appear to be repeatedly violating official policy (in this case Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) their behavior should not be ignored. It is my hope that by being direct and letting users know that attention is being paid, that they will feel less inclined to act in ways that disrupt Wikipedia. If we debate issues openly we all gain. If I have any "initiative" here, it is to help make that happen. Regards, -MrFizyx 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AOTD!

Celebrate!--87.42.205.66 08:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW congratsBalloonman 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Balloonman, despite your opposition to the FAC nomination, thank you so much for showing your appreciation of our hard work. LaSaltarella 08:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

Dear MrFizyx, I am very glad to see you acknowledging your good intentions. I have a great deal of respect for your commitment. The realities that I would like to comment on relate to three challenges that are highlighted in your perspective. The first has to do with you incidentally stirring up a controversial issue among the WP editors contributing to this article. The second has to do with the fact that this issue has been also quite controversial on other schools' pages (not OWU's page only). The third, and perhaps the most important one, has to do, and I am sure you will appreciate it even more once you read Burtchaell's book, with the fact that the affiliation has been very controversial in the school's relatively recent history as well. I rather like these three perspectives because I find them quite apt if one looks at the affiliation argument and views it into these three perspectives. I really doubt that personal accusations will make the controversy, which has also existed outside of Wikipedia, go away. On the contrary, I think it will only destabilize the article.

Many other school articles can not succeed in obtaining the FAC status precisely because they witness a lot of conflicting views and editors bashing each other on all kinds of issues: boosterism, rankings, affiliation, focus. Those school articles witness editors who come knowing too much for their own good and not enough about anyone else's. Even worse, it often involves taking the obvious common ground and making it into a battleground. The truth is that religion is a controversial topic and the religious affiliation was a controversial topic in the governance of the school up until the 1960s. Even the language in OWU's catalog has been crafted to reflect very careful deliberations and debates in those years, which will become immediately obvious if you read Burtchaell's book. Thefore, I really urge you read the reflections of the school administrators in the book and see what they mean when they wrote "affiliated", "consistent with the Methodist tradition". I believe, it is much more meaningful to get their reasoning (as opposed to the reasoning of anyone on Wikipedia) rather than projecting your own. LaSaltarella 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It will be a while until I can look into this. I've been a bit busy with life. I do encourage others to find a bit more balance on OWUs history, but I think the article is quite good and probably is worthy of the main page sometime. -MrFizyx 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the affiliation is controversial or if certain parties wishes it was otherwise. The university recognizes the affiliation maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church. The United Methodist Church recognizes the affiliation United Methodist schools score high in rankings General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, The United Methodist Church. The affiliation exists and is recognized by both parties. The only people who contest this, are wikipedians who don't like the idea.Balloonman 07:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Balloonman, you are entitled to your own opinions. The are certainly appreciated by others and well-respected. I provided a legitimate academic source, the Burtchaell book and I encourage you to engage in a thoughtful argument of the information provided there. LaSaltarella 07:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of opinion. FACT: Ohio Wesleyan University recognizes an affiliation with the United Methodist Church. FACT: The United Methodist Church recognizes a relationship with Ohio Wesleyan University. Please provide sources that state that either one of those entities denies the affiliation? Burtchaell is one source whose piece is advocating a position that schools are moving away from their original Christian origins. The fact that he makes this argument does not dispel the FACTS. The school and the church recognize the affiliation. So long as they recognize the affiliation, it doesn't matter what somebody else's opinion is... and that is all Burtchaell can do. BTW, as you have made more than 3 edits on this subject AND I know you saw my comment about 3RR on my talk page, I will be reporting it. Making these edits is NOT vandalism as you claim.Balloonman 07:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Baloonman, you provide a fruitful perspective on a controversial issue. To help me undestand your opinion better, which reference from Burtchaell's book are you disputing? Also, what is your perspective on the 3RR rule? I am following the following guideline from the 3RR page: "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors." It is for this specific reason cited on the page that I strongly encourage you to discuss the matter in a non-confrontational way. LaSaltarella 07:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you've edited the same thing at least 4 times in the past two hours---changes that were made by at least 2 other people. By calling it vandalism you are not avoiding 3RR... it is not vandalism to make changes based upon facts remember to Assume Good Faith. As for what I am disputing. I am simply pointing out the facts: The University recognizes the affiliation. The Church recognizes the affiliation. Any position to the contrary is not based upon the official stance of the two entities invovled. You are making an argument based upon your interpretation of a single source... a source that is arguing that Christian churches have moved away from their origins. Nobody seriously questions that. But you are then taking Burtchael's arguments to say that there is no affiliation between the Church-School when clearly there is. BOTH entities recognize it. Any position to the contrary is to deny what the school's official website states as a fact.Balloonman 07:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Baloonman, I thank you for providing your candid opinion! I also very much appreciate hearing your perspective on what constitutes a "fact". I encourage you to keep an open mind about Burtchaell's exploration of the many facets of how "affiliation" is defined. His book is a fascinating academic study with Ohio Wesleyan administrators and previous Ohio Wesleyan presidents, a careful look at finance numbers on various aspects of what one might construe as affiliation: source of funding, # of Methodist students and so on. It really is a fascinating study in its careful historical follow-up. I encourage you to read it. I also encourage you to consider the Public Relations aspect of what you perceive as a fact. It will add a fruitful dimension to the controversial issue. Thank you again for your very helpful contributions! LaSaltarella 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the book is probably an interesting read (it has very positive reviews on Amazon.com) but the fact is that the university and the church recognize an affiliation. That recognition is mutual and current. It doesn't matter if there has been discussion about it or that it isn't as strong as it used to be. It isn't up to us to define "affiliation." The two entities involved (the school and the church) recognize the affiliation. You can find both the school and the church acknowledging it. It is not up to us to interpret the "source of funding,# of Methodist students and so on" to determine if the school is affiliated or not. The school states in plain english, OWU "maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church." Now, I don't know how you want to define affiliation, but it doesn't get any clearer than that. It's right there in black and white.Balloonman 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Balloonman, I am glad to see that you acknowledge the book as a legitimate source. That's certainly a very helpful start in legitimizing the information that it provides. Having said this, I would like to focus your attention on its last section dealing with Ohio Wesleyan, where the then-University President states his definition of his take on what "affiliation" meant when it was placed in the school literature: when the university uses the word affiliation, it meant a minimal manifestation of the University commitment to activism and social justice issues. That very tenuous definition of the word is not how many other schools use it. Also, am I correct to assume that you are very familiar with Burtchaell's book and that you have read it carefully? LaSaltarella 08:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how other schools use the term. Nor does it matter what opinions somebody makes---even if that somebody happens to be the schools president. The official position of the school is that there is an affiliation. The official position of the church is that there is an affiliation. Thus, an affiliation exists. Our job is not to interpret the simple position that the school takes. Burtchaell is making an argument, thus he is going to selectively quote people to advance his position. This isn't a slight on the book, it's a reality of publishing/research. You selectively parse quotes to make an argument. It should also be noted that the president is essentially a politician. We don't know what the conditions were for this quote. Who was he addressing? What were the circumstances? Were those his personal feelings or official policy? Official policy is that the school is affiliated. Until the schools official position is changed, it doesn't matter what Burtchaell argues or a specific president opines. Wikipedia HAS to follow the official position of the entity, not something that isn't official.Balloonman 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the Methodist affiliation thing on the grounds that OWU's own website declares "OWU maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church". If I'm misinterpreting what this means, please clarify.--A bit iffy 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would help if people did NOT label others' edits/reversions on this matter as vandalism. This is clearly a content dispute.--A bit iffy 08:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear A bit iffy, thank you for engaging and trying to help out. I appreciate it. Incidentally, I provided an answer to your question in the paragraph response to Balloonman right above where you asked the question. Several other editors noted in the discussion, as it was happening, of the Methodist template WP page (to which I will try to provide a link) that for a few schools such as Dickinson College, Duke University and Ohio Wesleyan University a more appropriate term is Methodist-related, not Methodist-affiliated. This is why I was trying to ask Balloonman on what he meant by "affiliated". The current connection to the school's denomination is as close to minimal as you can get before having it as non-existent. This means that if you want objectively (i.e. NPOV) to describe the relationship, you should use the appropriate term to describe in the infobox: "Historical Relation" or "Minimal Affiliation". LaSaltarella 08:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If we are looking for semantics, then "active affiliation" is the phrasology utilized by the university. Also, I agree with A Bit Iffy, the reason why I reported your 3RR violations is because your labelling people's edits as "vandalism." Legitimate content dispute is not vandalism and to state otherwise is to assume the worst in the motives of the other editors.Balloonman 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"...the most liberal principles"

Lately some editors have been removing the last phrase of this sentence from the lead paragraphs: Ohio Wesleyan has always admitted students irrespective of religion or race and maintained that the university "is forever to be conducted on the most liberal principles." so that it reads just Ohio Wesleyan has always admitted students irrespective of religion or race. The only edit summary I could find was "implies strong political bias; removed". I put it back in as 1) it is a quote from the 1842 University charter, and 2) it is well sourced. It is not bias on the part of an aouthor writing about OWU, it is part of the university's founding document, and it made it through peer review and FAC. Please discuss here before removing it again. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would put forth that "liberal" does not always refer to politics, and here it doesn't seem to refer to politics in any way. Situated so closely to admissions, it seems to be referring to its admission policies regarding minority students.bwowen T/C 01:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - here it seems to refer to academic freedom and a liberal arts education. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally struggle with it, because liberal in the 1800's doesn't mean what it means today. I personally could go either way, and I don't oppose it because I think there was some effort to define it in a classical sense of the term... not the context that liberal is used in the 21st century.Balloonman 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Liberal has been linked to classical liberalism, which helps. Would it also help to mention the quote is from the 1842 University Charter? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC

There is a request for comment about this article. However, one of the major participants is blocked. This may impede on the RFC progress. Regular editors of this article may consider summarising the area that needs comment. It has something to do with the religious affiliation of the university. It need not be a strict pro and con listing. Sometimes, it's better to describe it in the most neutral way possible and then have other editors make additional clarifications, if needed. Ideally, there will be at least 1-2 clarifications added otherwise there's no need for a RFC.VK35 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above under "Response." Basically it boils down to this:
    • On the one hand, we have people who are point to the schools official website which identifies an "Active Affiliation with the United Methodist Church" and the United Methodist Church recognition that OWU is a Methodist School. This group believes that the page should have the template identifying it as affiliated with the Methodist Church because both primary parties acknowledge the relationship.
    • On the other hand, we have people who are arguing that despite this official recognition by both the school and the Church that the affiliation is meaningless as argued by Burtchaell in his book discussing how colleges/universities have moved away from their religious roots. This group believes that the page should not have said template because of the arguments made by Burtchaell.Balloonman 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
My two cents as a current student of Ohio Wesleyan: I'd say not to apply the template. On the one hand, I do tell every campus tour that I give that, indeed, we are a Methodist institution; however, on the other hand, I always immediately follow it up by saying that there is almost no practical application of this affiliation in students' every day lives. Our university chaplain is appointed by the Methodist bishop, and I think there's a member of the Church who sits ex-officio on the Board of Trustees, but that's about it. Students really don't have much interaction with the "religious" side of the school's affiliation unless they so choose. Thanks for your hard work, and for helping to get my alma mater featured. Bwowen 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I do tell every campus tour that I give that, indeed, we are a Methodist institution There in lies why it this isn't really a debatable point IMHO. The affiliation template doesn't indicate that the school is a bunch of Bible thumper's or a predominant feature, but rather an acknowledgment of an official status of the university that is recognized by the school and the church. If it wasn't Bwowen probably wouldn't mention it in "every campus tour." Therein lies the extent to which I am going to comment on this RFC (at least until LaSaltarre can defend her position.)Balloonman 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Affiliation has little to do with students everyday life experience. It is an institutional relationship between the church and the school. OWU acknowledges it on their website and in their catalog. The UMC ackowledges it through the listing of United Methodist-related schools on one of their official web sites. There is no reasonable argument for removing the template. I think OWU's ties to the UMC are stronger than the a majority of schools listed and on most articles its inclusion is not in dispute. Mainline churches simply don't impose themselves upon their affiliated universities in the way they did in the 1800s or in the 1950s that does not mean the designation should be ignored. If nothing else, OWU shares a common history with the other schools on the template.
This dispute has been sustained on this by dubious means. There have been half a dozen accounts created that have removed the "Methodist affiliate" designation within minutes of their first log-in. Some of these accounts lie dormant for months and then reactivate within minutes or hours of the template being re-added. I don't know what you would call this other than sock puppetry. -MrFizyx 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the concept of quorum applies or has been reached. However, I think a RfC may generate responses from people who are less informed than people at the university. For this reason, perhaps informal mediated discussion is better. If this is acceptable, I'll try to informally mediate a concensus. There are no guarantees but if everyone's mindset is not to cut the other guy's throat, then that's promising. If you prefer for me not to act, this is ok with me. (Conflict of interest disclosure: I am a Christian by religion but not a Methodist. I have not heard of the university before (sorry) or know anyone that has taught or studied there.)VK35 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has definately not been reached... there are at least 4 people who have actively endorsed adding the parameter... and at least 2 people (and 3 suspected SOCKS) that oppose (one of the main voices who is temporarily silenced due to 3RR.) NOTE the Socks have been suspected by at least 3 people individually of being SOCKS independent of others.Balloonman 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to concede, as MrFizyx made a very convincing argument. Just for reference, can someone link some pages that display the way that "OWU's ties to the UMC are stronger than a majority of schools listed?" Thanks! bwowen T/C 22:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the identification should be added, but that information on how to interpret "affiliation" should also be in the article, if the "nonsectarian" references are deemed insufficient to do that job.justice-thunders-condemnation 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that disorder is starting to occur. This section should be for the RFC or to comment on my suggestion that an informal mediated discussion would take the place of a RFC.VK35 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please supply links to the official OWU and United Methodist web pages cited above (or if these are print only, please provide refs and direct quotes)? Also quote(s) from Burtchaell's book please. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Repasted from above: The university recognizes the affiliation maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church. The United Methodist Church recognizes the affiliation United Methodist schools score high in rankings General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, The United Methodist Church. The affiliation exists and is recognized by both parties. As for the Burtchael quote you'll have to wait for LaSaltra to get off of block.Balloonman 01:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the 2006/2007 OWU Catalog is online as a pdf. Search through it for the word "Methodist". Some exemplary quotes:
  • "[Ohio Wesleyan] is a member of the Association of American Colleges and the University Senate of the United Methodist Church."
  • "Founded by Methodists in 1842, Ohio Wesleyan maintains an active affiliation with the United Methodist Church...",
  • "Since its founding, Ohio Wesleyan has maintained its connection with the Methodist (now United Methodist) Church...",
  • "Consistent with our Methodist tradition, Ohio Wesleyan encourages concern for all religious and ethical issues and stimulates students to examine their own views in light of these issues.")
Further
  • The catalog quotes a 1952 declaration of General Conference of the Methodist Church regarding intellectual freedom and affirms the University's commitment to that.
  • The Department of Religion frequently offers courses that discuss of focus on Methodism specifically.
  • The Board of Trustees include the Bishops of the East and West Ohio conferences of the UMC as "Ex-Officio" members and an number of other figures associated with the United Methodist Church (although picking them all out might be tricky).
-MrFizyx 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks MrFizyx, that is even better than the official webpage or the inclusion on the UMC's General Board of Higher Education website. To me this is has always been a no-brainer, but IMHO your quotes seal the deal... regardless of what a Burtchaell's hypothesis might be.Balloonman 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If both the school and church say their church-affiliated, and the purpose of the template is merely to reflect that affliation (not a judgement on what the affiliation means or how it operates), then I'd support it inclusion. Mbisanz 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for some help at Georgetown

I am hoping that some of the fine editors who have worked on this article could lend their eyes to my Georgetown University article. In working on Georgetown's article, I've looked here for inspiration at times, so I was wondering if I could get advice. I put it up for peer review, but more important would be the thoughts of the editors of a similar university. I am here because Wesleyan, like Georgetown, is a historic, private, well respected, university, and should have basically similar article styles. Besides any advice on article content, such as what's missing or what's unnecessary, I'm looking for ideas on how to better move up the wikipedia foodchain to FA status like this. How, at a smaller school, can I get more people involved? Who/where is good to ask for assistance? What should I avoid doing when posting it as a featured article candidate? Thanks for any time you can share.--Patrick 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So many names!

Ohio Wesleyan is referred to variously as Ohio Wesleyan University, OWU, the school, the college, and the University—why does it need so many names? Surely one or two will do?

The article is slowly edging toward completion. I haven't touched anything past Organizations and Activities. Rintrah 09:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Any of them will be fine. Let's pick 1 or 2 that are consistent with the the copyediting rules of WP. LaSaltarella 21:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Vote Ohio Wesleyan and OWU. Therefore, all other names should be deleted. Rintrah 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since there is a Wesleyan University in Connecticut, I think this article should consistently call this school Ohio Wesleyan rather than Wesleyan. I'm making the change. Hope it's okay. Zaslav 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Go for it and thanks for your helpBalloonman 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, after scanning the whole article, too much "Ohio" gets monotonous. But I tried to hit all the paragraph openers and generally change many "Wesleyan"s to "Ohio Wesleyan", "OWU", "the university" or "the school", just to vary things. (Thanks for the encouragement.) Zaslav 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That is probably the best solution... I personally think OWU is fine as the campus goes by "Oh-Wooo"... but that is technically a violation of the Wikiguideline pertaining to abbreviations.Balloonman 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Another solution is to copy the "multi-Wesleyans" header notice from Wesleyan University. That should get the point across efficiently, and makes my original idea less important. Let me know if it seems bad. Zaslav 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody actually refer to Ohio Wesleyan as Wesleyan? I don't think so. Can the name Wesleyan be dropped from the article's first sentence? Wis2fan 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Useful but needs to be verified

In 2003, both Ohio Wesleyan students and the administration severely criticized and acted against the Campus Crusade for Christ group.[1] The organization is an interdenominational Christian organization, focusing on evangelism and discipleship in over 190 countries around the world. [2] Students and administrators complained of being bullied by the ministry's members. [3] The most recent backlash at OWU was due to the Campus Crusade's "Do You Agree with Adam?" campaign, which encouraged Christians campuswide to openly display signs of their faith. Most believed the resulting actions, such as chalking, were aggressively intrusive and spread religious intolerance.[4][3][5] As a result, several activist groups and the administration protested the organization's presence on campus. As a result, Campus Crusade for Christ was expelled from the campus for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year.[4][1]

The above is all totally correct. I can verify via print archives of the Transcript and an interview done with University Chaplin, Jon Powers. I believe it should be added to the page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.21.141.83 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment regarding the ban of the Campus Crusade for Christ organization and the controversy surrounding its presence on campus. There were two reasons why several editors agreed to leave it out from the main article 9 months ago. One has to do with with the fact that not all facts or events deserve to be in the main article. There are many incidents and many events that have happened in the school's history and most of these events are not notable. user:Balloonman was a strong supporter of that view. In fact, we tried to preserve an overall balance with focus on events both old and recent. The second aspect has to do with the sources and verification of the fact. As you might notice most of the citations were from the Transcript and they did not accurately present a consistent picture of what actually happened. I see you suggested that you could verify the facts with print sources and and an interview done with the University Chaplin, Jon Powers. This was a view supported by the majority of the editors who helped with bringing the article to FA standards. Here is what I'd suggest. Per your suggestion above, could you draft a section, properly cited and well-written? Add it here on the Talk Page for discussion and see what editors will have to say. I'd strongly suggest against adding material on the main page right away, first because it might be controversial and second because the article is in FA shape and whatever you decide to add needs to follow the high standards of a Featured Article. Thanks for your time! LaSaltarella (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the statements I removed that Ohio Wesleyan is liberal, but the sources used for these two statements do not hold up. As near as I can tell, College Prowler is a forum for students to write about their school that has no research or vetting behind it, though if I am wrong someone can correct me. As for the 70% number for Kerry, two of the internet sources used do not exist any more and the third source gives no information about percentage. The statements themselves are fine if alternative sources can be found, but since this is an FA, I went ahead and removed the statements entirely rather than put a citation needed tag in place of the unreliable sources. Indrian (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Years of Change

In the Years of Change section of the article, the sentece states "...Board members in the 1930s, eventually resulting in the university's current loose historical affiliation with the United Methodist Church." This sentence is cited with an evidently biased source (Burtchaell) that is only used in the article when discussing the relationship between the Methodist Church and OWU. I corrected this sentence based on five reliable sources to read "...Board members in the 1930s, eventually resulting in the university's current active affiliation with the United Methodist Church." Whereas the former version uses the terminology "loose historical affiliation", my version read "active affiliation." According to a reliable reference from OWU's About OWU article, "OWU maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church". Another reference from the International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU) lists OWU's denomination as "United Methodist." Another source from OWU Athletics states "Ohio Wesleyan is affiliated with the United Methodist Church, and long has produced many of its bishops." Another source from the OWU Chaplain's Office clearly shows the logo of the United Methodist Church as the symbol of the website, juxtaposed with the words "Ohio Wesleyan University Chaplain's Office." Another source from the United Methodist Church News Service calls OWU a "United Methodist school." By examining these five sources, it is evident that OWU is actively affiliated with the United Methodist Church and that this affiliation is neither "loose" nor "historical" in nature. Because five sources stand contrary to the non-accessible biased source by "Burtchaell", I have added a verifiability tag to the subsequent sentence which states, "In a study into the relationship between American educational institutions and the Christian denominations they were historically affiliated with, James Tunstead Burtuchell writes that it was during this period that “in its personnel, its resources, and its students”, Wesleyan lost its “symbiotic intimacy with the United Methodist Church.”" After I made these changes, a "new" or sleeper account with no previous edits, has attempted to reverse my edits twice. Looking at the previous discussions on this talk page, it was stated here that the "loose historical affiliation" clause was added by a sock puppet account. In light of the fact that the current source does not meet WP:V and the fact that I have located five accurate sources, both primary and secondary, that state the contrary, I am restoring my accurate version of the page and removing the subsequent misleading sentence. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, you are correct, it produced many of its bishops in the early 1900s. Not now. Quite a few private liberal arts colleges in the Northeast were founded with protestant churches and produced clergy. This is not the case now. I am not sure how to interpret a logo? I was never aware that a logo can indicate strength of a relationship. What guidelines do you use to interpret an image objectively? The five sources that you list show an active affiliation. I am not arguing that an actual active affiliation does not exists, but that it is very loose. James Tunstead Burtuchell's source is neither inaccurate, nor inaccessible. It is accessible through libraries or bookstores. Therefore, I am restoring the correct version. Luckyowu (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • While I have my doubts about Burtuchell's book, without seeing it I cannot comment on if it is a biased source. I will, however state that I don't personally have a problem with describing the situation as a loose historical one. OWU is NOT a religious school and it's affiliation, while active, is still loose---similar to Souther Methodist University. I would, as I've commented before, have a problem with people making the claim that it isn't a Methodist School or affiliated with the UMC. But to describe the affiliation as loose, is probably an accurate depiction. I should note that Indrian, with whom your conflict began, is like me, one of the voices who generally believes that the editors of this page do lean too far to one side... so having the two of us on the other side of the fence, probably isn't a good indicator...Balloonman (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On another note, both of you (lucky and Anupam) should be warned that you are both in danger of violating 3RR... any additional reverts may result in a block.Balloonman (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your statements are considered original research. If you insist on using the words "loose" and "historical", an accurate source must buttress this position. According to WP:V, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Your text is unavailable online and is not supported by any other source that concerns itself with the affiliation between OWU and the UMC. The word "loose" cannot be found anywhere on the website of OWU or the UMC. It is unsourced and therefore cannot be used in the article. The words "historical" and "active" are contradictory. The relationship not only historically existed, but continues to exist. Secondly, please support your subsequent sentence sentence with a source other than the questionable "Burtuchell" source per WP:V or it will continue to be challenged. Using the logo of the United Methodist Church on an official OWU website shows that the affiliation is not loose but active. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with with Balloonman's description. OWU is NOT a religious school and it's affiliation, while active, is still loose---similar to Souther Methodist University. As a student, I can tell you that most students are not even aware of the active Methodist connection. I can find numerous sources to support the loose affiliation. I do not see active and loose as mutually exclusive. How is Burtuchell's book questionable, Anupam? Luckyowu (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The source is cited. A source does not have to be online to be accessible... per your own quoting of the policy, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The source is cited and clearly enables the reader to find the text... I would encourage you to look it up. If the book doesn't support what is said, then you can challenge it. Personally, it would not surprise me if some of the items cited on this page are not supported by the provided references (when I looked at the webpages a year ago I found that to be the case.) But books are generally regarded as MORE reliable than websites---even if it does require that you get them via interlibrary loan or some other way. As for your pointing to a seal, that is WP:OR. Pointing to a seal would be like pointing to the cornerstone of a building that identified the building as a church... and declaring that the building, despite obviously not being a church, was still a church.Balloonman (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Burtuchell's source is only used in the article to disassociate the OWU from the UMC. It stands contrary to the other sources used to describe the relationship between OWU and the UMC. If you have numerous sources to support a loose affiliation, I would appreciate if you could please provide them. From the five sources I have provided, the only word used to describe this affiliation is "active." Therefore, it is best to only use this word. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would love for you to get the book and validate every reference to the book... like I mentioned above, when I checked the footnotes to what was claimed about a year ago, I found that the citations often did not support what the article said. That being said, your sources are primary sources and the book is a secondary source. Secondary sources are generally regarded as better sources. I can make all sorts of claims about myself, but they don't mean as much as what an independent observer says. The school and the church are both benefited by recognizing a relationship---even if such a relationship only exists on paper. There is no doubt that a relationship does exist. The question is how strong is it and how "active" is it? An independent source implies the relationship has deteriorated until it virtually exists in name only---which means that it is both "active" and "historical". Does OWU/UMC use the term to describe a relationship that exists only insofar as the UMC donates money to OWU annually? That the UMC gets a person on the board? That exists primarily on paper? Or is it a lot more? When looked at historically, the relationship was MUCH more "active" than it is today.Balloonman (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Another thing to think about, I have an "active" affiliation with OWU. Once a quarter they send me a magazine and about 2-4 times a year somebody calls or writes me a letter asking for money. It is active, but it is nothing compared to the affiliation I historically had as a student. Active can mean anything from "yeah, there is one" to "not only does one exist, but it is the core of our existence."Balloonman (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University

Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University, an article split out of this one in 2006 during a Featured Article review, is currently being considered for deletion. The AfD could result in a recommendation to merge the content back into this article rather than deletion. Should the material be deleted, merged, or kept as a separate article? Baileypalblue (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization and administration section

I note that this article doesn't appear to have any section dedicated to describing the organization and administration of the university. Per WP:UNIGUIDE, might we devote some space for the structure of the administration, current leadership, budget, relationship with a board of trustees, formal affiliations or relationships with other universities in Ohio, student and faculty government, endowment information, academic divisions of the college/university, membership in major consortium or other inter-university organizations, etc.? Some of this information is already present within the article but spread throughout disparate sections. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University AfD

An AfD has been fiiled for Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University. Please comment on the nomination here. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tags

For the sake of effective communication I'll elaborate on my addition of cleanup and EL tags to the article. In response to this comment, I'd like to point out that a) FA status doesn't guarantee the process was successful in producing a truly great article, only that it passed, and b) FA status doesn't apply ad infinitum, as it refers to the article as it was when it was reviewed, and the article can later be de-listed. If tags are needed, there's an opportunity to improve the article, and there's little sense in deleting them just because it somehow makes the article looks bad. As for my reasons for the tags: the article needs cleanup because there are redlinks referring to a list of degree programs, an article that was deleted per UNI and WP:NOT (clearly a case of the FA process being flawed or the FA status no longer applying), and the list of external links clearly doesn't meet WP:EL/WP:NOT/WP:UNIGUIDE -- and there could be other issues that I haven't yet noticed. I didn't tag the article to be a pain in the ass, but because I noticed a few issues and was willing to let someone else do a bit of looking about for article issues and tidying up before I got around to it myself. If anyone is interested in improving the article, rather than its FA status, please feel free to consult helpful sources like UNIGUIDE and perform a cleanup; I'll gladly do it myself later, if no one else steps up. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the three redlinks, but a few redlinks is not grounds for tagging an article. As a general rule, put requests for clean up (with specific details) on the talk page of FA status articles. Also, remember, while this may not be in the format that the University project advocates, that does not mean that the article is wrong or needs to be cleaned up. Wikiprojects do not own the articles under their realm. This article passed FA, whose guidelines are generally reviewed as a more reliable than any individual Wikiproject's guideline. If they aren't addressed in a reasonable time, THEN tag the page. If you have specific concerns/issues, share them. I addressed the concerns you raised above, and it took me less time to do so than it did to write this! But simply saying, this doesn't meet a list of pages, without explaining your concern is of zero help/benefit. It doesn't express what your concerns are and provides no basis for reasonable discussion. Now, I'm not saying that I'm married to this article or that I think this article is FA, but FA's are treated differently because they have undergone an intensive peer review process. Again, if you want to provide specific reason/concerns about how this fails those pages, please mention them.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: UNIGUIDE, it does hold guideline status and probably should be followed if possible, but even if there's disagreement about UNI there are still WP:EL issues with this article -- I'll say again that the assumption here seems to be that either a) the FA process is flawless or b) the article hasn't changed at all since it passed. As for the "general rule", I haven't run across any such recommended procedure for tagging (that is, the idea that it's somehow gauche to tag FAs), despite having recently looked about for that information. Do you have that in writing anywhere or is simply your personal way of going about things? My own personal procedure for discussion usually involves providing links for others to read, and it would be rather helpful for me to see it rather than take your word for it. As for my explanation for the tagging, I understand your need for me to elucidate, which is why I created this talk section; there's no need to beat a dead horse here, and I'm actually quite perplexed as to why your last request is for me to "please mention them" -- was my explanation above insufficient? If so, how specifically did it fall short of your expectations? I realise that fixing the article issues wouldn't have taken long, just as I realise that it look even less time for me to notice a couple of problems and add a tag than it would've for me to fix them, so I'm not sure what your point is there (except of course that you didn't understand and I needed to explain, which, as I said, I didn't think would be necessary). Anyhow, let me know if you require anything further from me. Perhaps I'll be by again to see if I notice any other article problems. Cheers! --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure of what you are saying here... you seem to be rambling. Basically, I'm looking for what you think is wrong with the article. The few items you mentioned, I've taken care of. As for your linking to pages... if you have specific concerns again, raise them. I have no problem with linking, but linking works better when you link to a section that you think needs to be addressed. When you link to a few 30K pages and simply say, "Here's the problem." That is not helpful. I could read the pages not knowing what you want me to absorb and have no clue as to what your concern is.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
As for guideline status, that just it. UNI is a guideline, not an absolute law. If an article is well written and achieves recognition as such, then the necessity to make the article conform to another standard is diminished. Attention should be focused on getting other articles to a quality status. UNI, even as guideline, does not dictate the way articles have to be written. Wikiprojects do not own articles. You keep saying that FA is broken... no FA is one of the hardest areas to get an article through. FA is not obligated to adhere to a wikiproject's parameters... it will accept well written aritcles on their own merits.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit that it may have been easier for you to read had I broken my comment into number sections, but it seems to me as though you, Balloonman, have managed to misunderstand all on your own. Let me explain again:
  • I've already said more than once what I thought was wrong with the article. I haven't checked it again since, as I've been otherwise occupied, but you keep asking me what I thought was wrong. If you've fixed it then fine, but after you fixed it you still asked me to explain: "Again, if you want to provide specific reason/concerns about how this fails those pages, please mention them." I did that the first time, so I responded to your request: "... there's no need to beat a dead horse here, and I'm actually quite perplexed as to why your last request is for me to 'please mention them' -- was my explanation above insufficient?" Of course, you haven't answered my question, but instead have asked me to explain again: "... if you have specific concerns again, raise them."
  • Re: links, I thought it quite clear; I requested a previously established rationale for your comment about a "general rule" for tagging: "As for the 'general rule', I haven't run across any such recommended procedure for tagging... Do you have that in writing anywhere or is simply your personal way of going about things?" I'll say again that while I was kind enough to provide WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:NOT, and WP:EL so that you could read them and clearly understand my rationale for the tagging, you've provided no support for your claim about a "general rule". As I said before, I "recently looked about for that information" and couldn't find it. I'm trying to be helpful here while you've provided me no evidence for your claims and told me that I'm rambling. As I said before, "I didn't tag the article to be a pain in the ass..." so I'd appreciate the courtesy of some assistance instead of insult.
  • Your claim is that I "keep saying that FA is broken" but I've never said that; only that FA cannot be perfect. The two statement are not synonymous in meaning, and I'd prefer to be quoted than to have the facts misrepresented. Furthermore, if there's anything the FA process exists for, it's discussion and collaborative improvement, and in the absence of any Wikipedia guideline against tagging FAs, I'd argue that tags encourage such discussion and improvement.
  • If there's no desire to follow a guideline, then what is its purpose? And what is the purpose of the procedure to gain guideline status? I never meant to imply that UNIGUIDE is cruel and unflinching, only that it is a helpful guide, since it's based on the WP:MOS, WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:LEAD, and other guidelines that all reflect a consensus of good editing practices. Ignoring it based on a simplistic "I don't have to" principle is, to use your words, "not helpful to anyone." I certainly don't pretend that any article is owned, either, so I'll try to ignore yet another uncalled-for remark.
Clearly my tagging, as much as you dislike it, did its job and got you to fix some article issues. Perhaps next time you can focus on article improvement and less on asking editors several times to explain the same patent issues. It seems as though we're just talking here for the sake of clarifying a point rather than arguing over any content issues, so I don't plan on discussing any further, but I'd still welcome any as-yet-unfurnished support for your arguments. Perhaps we'll meet again if I find more problems with this particular FA. Take care. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Balloonman was not the one who initially removed your tags, that was me. I don't think I could state the case more clearly than I did in the edit summary, but you somehow have completely missed the point. I did not object to the application of the tags or assert the article was "perfect" somehow because it was an FA. I removed your tags because you provided no explanation on the talk page, and since this is an FA that is an entirely unhelpful thing to do. If you had immediately gone to the talk page and written the explanation you gave at the start of this topic, I would not have removed the tags. You are now, however, assuming that users are resistant to changing the article because of your misguided deduction that we believe the article is not in need of review. I have no idea where you got this completely crazy idea. Focus on helping fix the article instead here please. If you think certain links are not necessary here, tell us which you think are inappropriate; I imagine you will find consensus to eliminate them. Otherwise, you really are not helping much. Indrian (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd really like to let this go, but: I didn't take issue with you at OWU because you didn't belabour the point, Indrian. You said "please do not add a cleanup tag without going into some detail on the talk page," so I re-added them and did just that -- no problem there. The problem arose after I'd provided specifics complete with guideline links, when Balloonman removed the tags again saying that I would "Need specifics" and then said on the talk page, "Again, if you want to provide specific reason/concerns about how this fails those pages, please mention them." despite the fact that I'd already done so. I pointed out that I'd provided specifics and said, "I'm actually quite perplexed as to why your last request is for me to "please mention them" -- was my explanation above insufficient? If so, how specifically did it fall short of your expectations?" Balloonman's response was to tell me that I was "rambling" and said again, "if you have specific concerns again, raise them." As well as telling me "That is not helpful." when I linked to guidelines (I try to familiarise myself with guidelines and -- as I've demonstrated -- express an interest in learning more about them). Editor then said "As for guideline status, that just it. UNI is a guideline, not an absolute law." -- a poor argument, especially in light of the fact that I don't view it as a law but as a helpful tool established by prior consensus -- and misrepresented me further by saying things like "You keep saying that FA is broken." No one has thus far been able to point to any guideline or precedent establishing that tagging an FA is to be avoided, and my comments thus far have had two goals in mind: to explain the tags and to find out more about the existence of such a policy. So far, I've been misrepresented, asked to do something I've already done, and told that guidelines don't matter, but no one's been able to show me despite repeated requests and a genuine desire to learn more. Can you help me with this last bit, Indrian? From whence does the "don't tag FA articles" rationale arise? That's all I want right now. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry this has all gotten so muddled; I was out of town for a few days so I did not know Balloonman had deleted the tags again, I have just been following the commentary on the talk page here. I will not speak for him, but I have no problem with tags being added to an FA at all. I removed them the first time because they were added without rationale, and I think that is unhelpful on an FA solely because maintaining FA status is hard enough without random tags popping up with no advice on how to fix specific issues (though I make no assertion as to the current quality of this particular article). Once you added rationale on the talk page, my problem on that issue ended. Indrian (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Indrian. I appreciate it. I guess the reason I never saw a guideline against FA tagging is because it didn't exist, but your reasoning makes sense to me. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Current issues

I'm a bit lost in the discussion above. Can someone please lay out - clearly and in some detail - exactly what issues in the current version of the article need to be addressed? --ElKevbo (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

None any longer of which I'm aware. I just noticed it needed some link cleanup, especially after the advert-like and NOT-defying list of degree programs was deleted. I haven't checked the article since. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Athletics section tags

I've added both an 'Update section' and a 'disputed section' tag to the Athletics section because just a cursory fact check revealed a number of errors. I think some are just flat factual errors (e.g., "The men's baseball team has been NCAA champion eight times" ... according to this, they've won 10 NCAC championships, but according to this website, they've never won a Division III NCAA title) and some of the information probably just needs to be updated. I don't have enough interest in this article to put the time and effort into updating and correcting it. Hopefully someone else who does have such interest will do so. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the errors, probably took about the same time as putting the section tags. I believe the errors relating to those specific sport championships was an editor(s) accidentally writing "NCAA champions" instead of "NCAC". Since the league championships were still outdated, I simply removed them because the last sentence in that problem paragraph suffices to address the number of NCAC title won. "Wesleyan's varsity athletic teams have been NCAC champions over 100 times." Bhockey10 (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Two Polite Suggestions.

In the Profile section, consider the sentence "OWU departments conduct all research and lectures internally." I teach at OWU. I have no idea what this means. Is it to suggest that all lectures take place on campus by OWU instructors? That would be false - we've participated in several shared courses taught by video lecture from other sites (e.g. Arabic, which was a multiple school collaboration). Is it to suggest that departments do not collaborate in teaching? Again false - I myself have team taught courses with faculty from other departments, and it is an increasingly common practice. Is it to suggest that OWU faculty do all of their research on site? Again false, with at least dozens of faculty regularly engaging in research all over the world. So, what is meant by this?

I object to the name "Wesleyan" in reference to OWU. Wesleyan is almost universally understood to refer to Wesleyan University, in Middleton, CT. Besides, there is Nebraska Wesleyan, Illinois Wesleyan, West Virginia Wesleyan, etc. These schools are not affiliated with one another (though they may all follow from some shared philosophical or historical grounding). Indiana Wesleyan has now migrated to become an online college that advertises heavily in the Midwest. Surely OWU has no connection here - formally, philosophically or (for all I know) historically. So, I would appreciate all references to OWU as "Ohio Wesleyan University", "Ohio Wesleyan" or "OWU".

Thank you, and Go Bishops! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.44.248 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I too do not understand OWU departments conduct all research and lectures internally. I've prefixed "Wesleyan" with "Ohio". -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The sentence was unreferenced and in a FA, so I removed it. Thanks for the heads up. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ohio Wesleyan University. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 34 external links on Ohio Wesleyan University. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ohio Wesleyan University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ohio Wesleyan University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ohio Wesleyan University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b "Campus Crusade regroups after last year's controversy". The Transcript. Retrieved 2006-21-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ McMurtrie, Beth (May 18, 2005). "Crusading for Christ, Amid Keg Parties and Secularism". Chronicle of Higher Education. p. A42.
  3. ^ a b "[OWU] Read this Column". The Transcript. Retrieved 2006-12-12. Cite error: The named reference "OWUandCCC" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b "Dear Editor". Kelly Horstman, The Transcript. Retrieved 2006-12-12. Cite error: The named reference "OWUtolerance" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Colleges draw line on sidewalk chalk". CNN. Retrieved 2006-12-03.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ohio_Wesleyan_University/Archive_5&oldid=1159836713"