Jump to content

Talk:Indiana Wesleyan University/Archive 1

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

Cleanup

I went ahead and did some of the cleanup that was badly needed. Since another editor decided not to play by the rules in removing the Cleanup tag repeatedly, I went out of my way today to hopefully move the article a lot closer to Wikipedia standards. It still needs much improved wikification and NPOV treatment. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iwuwildcat.jpg

Image:Iwuwildcat.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 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 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iwugraph.gif

Image:Iwugraph.gif 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 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 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

More Source Tag

I have added a More Source Tag to this page as the majority of the information is simply not sourced. I'm an alumnus of IWU, so I hope to be able to work on getting more sources soon. Eastshire 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the president of the IWU Southern California Alumni Association and I edited most of this article. Previously, there was hardly anything on the page. Because I'm on staff at IWU, most of what I wrote I know for certain are verifiable facts about the university. Everything else was taken from indwes.edu (which is cited). Of course, listing things that I simply know from being on the inside of IWU as a staff member doesn't allow me to cite everything, but trust me, everything I wrote is true. Feel free to find sources for what I wrote and to add additional information - just be sure not to delete what I spent hours compiling.

Take care and God bless!

-manutdglory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manutdglory (talk • contribs) 01:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

I'm not really questioning anything in the article. It's just a high article to source ratio and I'd like to see it better.Eastshire 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Wow, lots of trivia. I removed the one regarding the youth pastor from California as he does not seem to be of more than local significance and it was more appropriate for inclusion in the church's page Eastshire (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't most of this trivia just that, trivial? Is it really necessary to list Oliver North as a famous speaker since he was on campus maybe one day? The only reason for inclusion of a speaker's visit would be notoriety of the actual speech itself, not just the man giving it. I also removed the tidbit about IWU's growth goals since it really is pretty inconsequential until the aforementioned goal is reached. One would assume many other colleges have a similar goal. 74.133.160.121 (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So everytime someone who has a wikipedia article about them steps foot on IWUs campus they get included in the trivia section? Seems awfully trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.34.251 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

COI Tag

This will stay. The main editor is the self-admited President of the S. Cali alumni chapter, so he DOES have a COI. The tag makes no mention of the article needing to have POV problems or requiring cleanup, just that it may need it. As far as other articles being edited by people with connections, I've slapped COI tags on them, too, and I suggest you do the same. Cheers. -- MeHolla! 18:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As long nothing conflicts with POV and everything has proper citation, than the tag has no purpose here. HoosierStateTalk 19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that's my point. I've requested administrators to remove the tag and reprimand user:Me, who has clearly overstepped his bounds.

Manutdglory (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the COI tag from this article. This should only be placed if the article is being tainted because of COI. After a thorough read of the article I find no distinguishable bias. In fact it is much improved and I have reassessed to it to a B rating for WP:WPIN. Charles Edward 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag makes no definition that the article DOES suffer from POV problems - only that it may. Readers should be warned when articles are written by people with COIs. No matter how well of a job Manutdglory has done, he DOES have a COI. And LOL @ overstepping my bounds. You should obviously read this. -- MeHolla! 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Undergrad Enrollment Expansion

Regarding the recently deleted paragraph by Brendan Bowen:

"Recently, the Board of Trustees voted to double the undergraduate student population to 6,200. Eventually, the University's total student body is projected to surpass 30,000, making it the largest Evangelical Christian university in the world. However, President Smith has stated that the current emphasis is on improving the academic reputation of the University and increasing the endowment."

I have heard from several reliable sources that this statement is accurate and that the board did indeed vote to eventually expand the undergraduate student body enrollment to 6,200 from the current 3,100, bringing the total student body of the University to over 30,000 students, if current growth estimates for the CAPS program are met. Has this decision been changed recently?


Manutdglory (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I am removing the NPOV tag for two reasons. 1) the user that placed it did not not in this talk page why he felt it was a POV violation. 2) I don't see a POV violation in the section. The section seems to fairly describe a controversy at the school. Eastshire (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the entire section as an egregious violation of our guidelines on reliable sources. If there really is or was a controversy then we must cite reliable sources. Without them, we're just smearing the institution and those involved with it and that's unacceptable in this or any other article. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Shane?

There is a problem with that Shane controversy. The book irresistible revolution, the "controversial textbook" was not even a required textbook for the 2007-2008 school year, it was added for the 2008-2009 UNV 180 course. Last year our required community service related read was a book by Kevin Blue (and he spoke in chapel early last year). There may be a liberal switch concern, or people might have problems with the new world changers course, but it did not start with Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopponloppol (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The section has been corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.78.195 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

world changers

I removed this section. I assure you I have nothing to do with Indiana Wesleyan University. It's just sourced to blogs, that's the basic problem. Anyone can get a blog and say anything... Wikipedia shouldn't republish such claims just because they're on a blog. We need a better source, like a newspaper or magazine. --Rividian (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that Rivdian is quite correct that blogs are not in general reliable sources and should be not be used as the sole source of assertions. Especially when the assertions are otherwise highly critical, verifiable corroboration is necessary. — Coren (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reinstated the section (for the 3rd time by my count). If you don't like the sources on a section, the proper response is to add a source tag, not delete it. It is a fact that World Changers is using Irresistable Revolution as a text this year. I have corroborated that with the Alumni Department myself. You can continue to try to white-wash this issue by deleting the section but I will continue to repost it. It *is* a controversy. And I for one am extremely disappointed. Kevin Schafer, Class of 2001 Eastshire (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It's sourced to blogs... get a real source and I will not be trying to remove it. I could create a blog right now, write about how you're the prime minister of france, and create a Wikipedia article on you, and by your own logic all you could do is add a source tag and leave the article up forever. Sourcing to blogspot blogs is just silly. --Rividian (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Simply put: No. The onus of sourcing lies entierly with the inclusion. No sources, no inclusion. If you persist in edit warring, you will be blocked. — Coren (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I have rewritten the World Changers section, although I will most likely add to it when I finish reading the book. All of the statements are sourced back to the book being used.Eastshire (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I had added some citation tags earlier, but they were removed without adding any reliable source to replace them. This may well belong in the article, but it may have some undue weight, and sourcing is a problem. Let me point out the problems here:

World Changers Controversy
The University has recently taken some criticism for significantly adjusting its World Changers course, which all freshman students are required to take, beginning with the 2007-2008 school year.(How do we know this is a required course? Where is the reliable source for that?) The source of the criticism is the course's new emphasis on social justice activism (such as feeding the poor and caring for the enviroment), rather than on striving for excellence for Christ in whatever career you are in, which was the former emphasis of the course for more than a decade.Coach D's Personal Updates: Changing World Changers(This ref is poor at best, as noted above, anyone can blog about anything. There needs to be a news article, something in the school newspaper, or something of that nature)
The controversy escalated when World Changers' administrators selected one of the course's new required textbooks, Irresistible Revolution, which was written by the controversial Shane Claiborne, for the 2008-2009 school year.(How is claiborne controversial? According to who? reliable source?) Many argue that Claiborne's radical views (What radical views? why radical? reliable source?) support the Social Gospel and socialism along with being anti-American.(This needs to be sourced from something besides this blog - a conservative newsite, something like that) More controversy ensued when it was announced that Claiborne is scheduled to speak in chapel at IWU on October 13, 2008, making him the most controversial chapel speaker in University history.(Most controversial according to who? Put this in perspective. Was the second most controversial person Micheal Jordon or Louis Ferican? Is there a reliable source to prove this statement?) Some view these changes as a sign that IWU may be shifting towards liberalism, as many fellow Evangelical colleges have already done. (Who is some? source?) It remains to be seen how University alumni and donors will respond to these changes.[1]

If these these cannot be addressed the section should be pared down to merely state there is a controversy, and it is undue weight as it is now anyway. Charles Edward 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The ramblings were nothing more than original research and were cited with only a blog. Cut this crap out, it's unneeded and is only one individual's pro-religion opinion. seicer | talk | contribs 14:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten section

@ElKevbo: The last rewrite of this section is most certainly not original research. It is simply a straight description of the arguments made by Shane Claiborne in his book "Irresistible Revolution." This book has been adopted as a required text by the university in one of only seven classes all students are required to take. This is an implicit endorsement of the book and its thoughts by the administration of the university. The new section doesn't even call this a controversy; it merely describes what the university is teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastshire (talk • contribs) 11:00, August 28, 2008

But nothing you've written makes any connection between the book and the topic of this article. You're going to have to find some awfully strong sources linking the two if you want to add information to this article. And I don't think that "they use this book" is a good argument as I am sure that thousands of books are used in courses at this institution.
And the criticisms in the material you've written for this article are criticisms of "the church." Who is "the church" and what in the world does that have to do with this institution? --ElKevbo (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The criticism are Mr. Claiborne's, not mine. He doesn't make it any clearer than "the church" in his writings. The importance of it to the university is that this class is the class in which they impart their mission statement to the students. That is what makes their use of this book noteworthy. This is the University's endorsement of Mr. Claiborne's ideas of Christianity as those to be emulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastshire (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like pure original research, specifically synthesis, to me. And on those grounds it doesn't belong in this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be true if I was in some way synthesizing material in the section. However, I am not. The ideas attributed to Mr. Claiborne are exactly that: his ideas as he presented them. I draw no conclusion in the section, instead I merely repeat facts. 1)Every freshman at IWU must take World Changers. 2)IWU adopted Irresistible Revolution as a required text for this class in 2008-2009. 3)Shane Claiborne states the church (his words, not mine) has lost its way and calls for a return to the early church (more specifically the church of the book of Acts, but I feel early church is a more accessible way of stating this) 4)Mr. Claiborne calls for "substantive justice", the elimination of poverty, and accuses his critics of of selective reading of the Bible. 5)Mr. Claiborne says the world cannot afford the American dream.
In truth, I am far closer to being charged with plagiarism than original research.Eastshire (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I remain utterly unconvinced and I welcome input from other editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material."" WP:OR If my providing a reliable published source that contains the same material isn't proof enough to you that this isn't original research, you'll have to take it up with the editorial board. I've followed the Wikipedia guidelines here. If you seriously are suggesting that I am taking Mr. Claiborne out of context, let's have an actual discussion on those grounds. Show me where in Irresistible Revolution I've taken him out of context. If you are claiming synthesis, show me the conclusion drawn in the article that is not drawn in Irresistible Revolution. This can't be shown because the article draws no conclusion. It simply restates Mr. Claiborne's points.Eastshire (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not whether what you've written in the article is true; it seems well-sourced. The issue is still: "What does this have to do with this institution?" You haven't provided a good link between this (a) book and the criticisms in this book and (b) this institution. Simply stating, without a source, that they use this book in a class isn't good enough. We could fill this article with summaries and criticisms of text books used by faculty at this institution. In fact, we could do that for every article about a college or university. But we don't do that because it would be an exceptional case where that would be appropriate because there is a direct link between the book and the institution. And you haven't documented that such a link exists. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
From the school's catalog

"Foundational Course for All Freshman:* 3 hours ""Becoming World Changers: Christian Faith and Contemporary Issues (UNV180) will provide students with a clear sense of the university's mission. It will enrich their understanding of the role of various academic disciplines in preparing them to become world changers, and will provide a clear challenge early in their academic career to do so." http://www.indwes.edu/catalog/pages/GeneralEducation.asp

This is not just a literature class studying a book. This is *the* class the university uses to say, this is who we are, what we believe and what we do. This is a definitive endorsement by the university. That is why there is a direct link. The university went looking for a book that said who they are and they chose this one.Eastshire (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also unconvinced that it has been established that the university is in any way endorsing this one person's opinion. If a single literature class teaches "The Tell-Tale Heart", does the whole university advocate murder? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
From the school's catalog

"Foundational Course for All Freshman:* 3 hours ""Becoming World Changers: Christian Faith and Contemporary Issues (UNV180) will provide students with a clear sense of the university's mission. It will enrich their understanding of the role of various academic disciplines in preparing them to become world changers, and will provide a clear challenge early in their academic career to do so." http://www.indwes.edu/catalog/pages/GeneralEducation.asp

This is not just a literature class studying a book. This is *the* class the university uses to say, this is who we are, what we believe and what we do. This is a definitive endorsement by the university.Eastshire (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's still synthesis to use that to bring this book and its criticisms to this article. You need someone else making a clear connection between this book and the institution in a way that makes it important enough to include in an encyclopedia article. Otherwise it's no different than other textbooks selected for classes, even if this one is mandatory.
Surely if this is so noteworthy and important others have written about it...? --ElKevbo (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've have added more information to the article showing the importance of this class to the university. Little has been written about it mainly because the university appears to be trying to introduce the book without alumni hearing about it. Despite their usual loud announcements of all things World-Changer, I have only been able to confirm the actual use of this book by either sources not suited to being cited (I have an e-mail from the Alumni Director) or web sites requiring java script selections. It is notable to alumni of the university simple for the lack of its announcement. Regardless, I have now shown in the article that this is the class where the university shares its vision with its students.Eastshire (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to read more about this. For this to be included into the university article, not only do the statements be verifiable, but also notable. At this time I cannot find a notable connection in placing this section into the university article at all. This university article is about the institution itself, not what one professor does in the entire university. Also, I'm not questioning the textbook publisher, but I am questioning the citation of a mere university catalog. I will refer Eastshire to WP:RS. I would consider a university catalog not a third-party source. Perhaps when a reputable, NPOV source discusses this in further detail would also satisfy the notability issue. For the record, I also agree with ElKevbo regarding the synthesis remark as well. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, the book the university (not by the way a single professor, the university selected the book) selected to pass its vision to its students is not notable in an article about the institution? The mind boggles. As far as synthesis, I again ask you: what exactly has been written that has not come straight from the sources cited? Synthesis is writing C when your sources only say A and B. If you are going to accuse me of synthesis, you need to actually point out material not directly taken from the sources. As far as the university catalog goes, you expect there to be some third party source out there that goes around publishing universities' vision statements and class descriptions? Let's be serious. The catalog is self-published, granted. But WP:RS specifically says that self-published sources can be used in limited circumstances. And in this circumstance, it's what the university is saying about itself that is important. No third-party source is more reliable than the university on what it says about itself.Eastshire (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is not notable. This is an article about the university, as I have said before. Under the current set of sources you have provided, it fails notability, I'll grant the limited usage of a university catalog since it is an internal matter, but still, there is still lack of parallelism connecting the two. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I still can't believe you're serious. An institution has vision. Why is that vision not notable in an article about that institution? This is IWU's corporate statement of who they are and were they want to go. It's an inherent part of the university, but it's not notable? Again, the mind boggles. Eastshire (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this in not notable. Obviously, something against the religion of an institution that is founded upon that religion, be forced on the students, could be controversial and notable. My concern here is more towards WP:UNDUE. No doubt claiborn is controversial - but a good source saying so needs to be provided. And the whole section should be shortened into a curriculum section saying "The school currently requires reading of a world changers book by the controversial claiborn". Cite a source showing it is required and a source that he is controversial. Thats it. Anything about his controversy should be added to his article, unless it directly relates to the school. Which does not appear to be the case. That is my opinion Charles Edward 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A fair argument. The reason I've highlighted the specific thoughts from Mr. Claiborne's book that I have is because those are the thoughts I've found so far that conflict with the general philosophy of the Wesleyan church. I think it reasonable to spell out a few (but only a few) of Mr. Claiborne's thoughts to allow the reader to draw their own conclusion. Someone in agreement with Mr. Claiborne would not see controversy from the section as it is now written. Rather they would be glad to see the university finally "getting it right" in their opinion. Meanwhile, those opposed to the views will find it controversial. To say it is a controversy with the sources I am able to find right now would be synthesis, which is why I don't say it (even though I believe it to be true).Eastshire (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Brief comment, per friendly notification provided at WT:UNI. I concur with what seems to be a prevailing consensus on this issue: third party reliable sources are the way to resolve this, and without them it's a case of WP:SYN or WP:OR (either way). As the policy on verifiability makes clear, it's not enough for it to be 'true', it must be verified by those third party, reliable, sources. I wouldn't oppose its inclusion (though a 'criticisms' section hardly seems the most constructive way of adding such content to the article), but it's the grounds on which these assertions are being made currently which is the problem. Source it, and it'll stick. Revert removal of the content and you may end up looking a giant mop in the face. ColdmachineTalk 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
East, regarding "synthesis", what we're saying is that there is a leap being made here: School uses book, book has a viewpoint, therefore school is advocating the viewpoint within the book as an official stance held by the institution. I don't believe there's any source making the connection clearly. Also, I think until several mainstream media sources reflect on the "controversy" of this book, notability is not asserted. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This section doesn't establish why the course/book are notable to IWU, and really it should be removed until it does so (but someone is willing to edit war to keep it in, so on Wikipedia that means it stays in... despite the fact that edit warring supposedly isn't allowed). Right now, even if it doesn't call it a controversy, it's giving undue weight to the topic and giving publicity to what is apparently a non-notable issue. --Rividian (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's staying in the way it is. I've sourced it. I've shown that the university itself places a significant amount of importance on the course. The university itself says this is what is notable about them. I've removed POV by not calling it a controversy. There is no synthesis because no conclusions are being drawn in the section. There is no original research as every claim is sourced. All this amounts to is people trying to shout down something they don't want to be known.
Further I even invited a Wiki administrator to review it and he found nothing objectionable about it. Argue with it if you like. Find sources that contradict it if you can. But I've made an addition to this article by following the rules Wiki established and it's going to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastshire (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The rewritten section is just as bad as the original. There are bouts of original research, sensationalized commentary, and overall, a pro-religion viewpoint. I'm not seeing a consensus here to keep it, and if the edit warring continues, I'll protect the page because this senseless crap is not worth edit warring over. seicer | talk | contribs 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no original research in the section. There is no commentary in the section. The pro-religion viewpoint comes from an article about a Christian University and a Christian author, both of whom, oddly enough, are pro-religion. Again I ask: what exactly is original research? Have you checked the cites? Because I have. Again the arguments against this section have no basis in fact. At no point has anyone demonstrated that anything in section is false or not drawn from a reliable source.Eastshire (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

There appears to be a pretty clear consensus to remove or at least drastically trim this section in the article. I ask that someone else take action as whenever I have tried to take action Eastshire has immediately reverted my changes and I don't care to engage in an edit war. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait forWP:3RR- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I don't understand your comment. Can you please clarify? --ElKevbo (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe he means wait for the three revert rule to be broken and then the admins can step in. Charles Edward 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Which of course is precisely what he means. In other words, you can win by merely shouting me down rather than actually proving your point. Eastshire (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
How about some other editors man up and prevent this one editor from imposing his or her own view on this article in opposition of the clear consensus presented here in Talk? There's no reason at all why I should be the only one to make significant edits to the article and edit war with this one editor if we're all in agreement. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not the only editor in favor of this section. manutdglory and Wannabepresident (who is not me, though I would guess you won't believe it. What happened to Assume Good Faith ?) have also edited in favor of it. You still have not provided any actual rational as to why the section should be removed. You cite Undue Weight, Original Research and Synthesis without making argument as to why this is so. So far all you have done is just delete information. Provide your rational, if you can. Eastshire (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Since you are the one who is creating the section and introducing new material, it is not necessary for us to prove anything to you. It is a matter of the editor who introduces the material who needs to show the information is reliably sourced, notable, verifiable, and accurate. Currently, the editors who have been commenting for removal of this content are all experienced editors and they have suggested that you may comment on this issue on another article, just not this one. Is it really that hard to ask? Your strong beliefs are not discouraged on Wikipedia, but consensus should not be countered by introducing new editors who have questionable intentions, despite WP:AGF. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You are unbelievable. I have shown the information to be reliably sourced, verifiable and accurate. (Notable, by the way, only applies to articles as a whole not to material in an article Wikipedia:Notable#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content.) Argument from authority is a fallacy. Just because you are "experienced editors" doesn't make you right. And yes, it is too much to ask that I include information about IWU on Shane Claiborne's page.Eastshire (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And it's curious that a brand new editor would stop by to contribute to the very section under discussion. Coincidence? --ElKevbo (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In content disputes, no real weight can be given to actions/votes from fly-by-night accounts that just happen to edit war with their first edits, it's just too coincidental. Now if "Wannabepresident" arrives with a thoughtful argument, that could be considered. But that hasn't happened yet. --Rividian (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to everyone else. Show me where this section violates Wiki guidelines. No one has. The only consensus here is that they don't want this information shared, not that there is anything wrong with it. I've met the standards for including information. Now either show me why I'm wrong or leave it alone. Eastshire (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It gives no reason why the course is any more notable than any of the hundreds of others the University doubtlessly offers. So why does it have a section and the hundreds of others don't? It doesn't establish any reason for that... but its presence does imply that someone thinks it's important, even if there's no reliable source saying it's important. This is original research. This has been said and said but you don't seem to be listening. --Rividian (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will make the undue weight argument. This article is about a university - and institution. One of such an age that there have no doubt been numerous past "controversies". What make this one any different? Putting in just this one thing makes it seem very big and important. And from what I understand, is basicly, that some people disagree with the choice of curriculum because of it's content and authorship. Which may be totally legitimate. But that can be said in one sentence, and should ONLY be included as part of a broader curriculum section, or the start of one - not it's section. You must see how that looks within the article. Is this section of two paragraphs more important than the two sentences dedicated to the founding of the university? Are these two paragraphs more important than the single mention of the head of the university. I should think not. So why is it getting two paragraphs, but these other, more important topics, getting considering less. Therefore, it is undue weight.

As for Synergy\Original Research\Reliable Sources argument. These are one in the same, until a viable, reliable, third party source like a news story, (or even something like a school newspaper), can show that this is anything more than just a small thing going on among a group of students, it has to be one of those three options. If there is no good source (which does not mean this is not a true controversy) then A. it is synergy to prove it, B. not true and original research, or C. is true but there are no reliable sources to prove it. Make sense? Charles Edward 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, someone willing to make a good faith attempt at settling this! I see what you are saying, but the reality is that World Changers (the class) is a significant part of the university. Rather than having the section deleted it really should be expanded in encompass the now 10 year history of the World Changers program at IWU. It started as just two sentences and was only expanded to two paragraphs at the insistence of the editors here to show relevance.
I'm not showing that there is a controversy. I'm just showing that the book has been adopted as a required text for the cornerstone class of the University and what some of the major themes of that book is. The sources for this are first party, but in the case of IWU, it's their catalog which should be a reliable document and Irresistible Revolution is published by a reputable publishing house and in any case Mr. Claiborne is an expert in his own opinion. A claim of controversy would be synthesis given the sources I have, which is why I don't make it. Eastshire (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You say it's "a significant part of the university' and I don't have any reason to doubt that, but ultimately we do need a reliable source to confirm that. If we just use Wikipedia to claim it's an important part of IWU because an editor says it's an important part of IWU, that's basically what we mean by original research; publishing the opinions of editors rather than summarizing reliable sources. --Rividian (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

...and the page has been fully protected for 48 hours, or until such defined consensus is achieved. I suggest starting up a basic straw poll. seicer | talk | contribs 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://irresistiblerevolution.blogspot.com/

Discussion after Lock Applied regardind World Changers Section

While I'm sure "my side" has the numbers, I don't think it really even needs to be about the numbers here. An reliable source explaining why this class/issue is notable is what's needed, otherwise, why not add a section for every class the university offers? --Rividian (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
First off notable does not apply to content in an article, only to articles themselves. See Wikipedia:Notable#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content. But let's go ahead and assume that notable has meaning here. I've shown that IWU's mission statement is "Indiana Wesleyan University will prepare each student to become a world changer. We will accomplish this by drawing students into an integrated experience of intellectual challenge, spiritual growth, and leadership development." and provided a reliable source for such. Is it your argument that an institution's vision statement is not notable?Eastshire (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be drawing an original conclusion from the mission statement (that because it says "world changer", then that a class called "World changers" must be the most notable class offered). --Rividian (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not, but it's refreshing to see proof that you haven't actually examined the sources I've provided before discounting them. From the source General Education Requirements we get this description of the class "Becoming World Changers: Christian Faith and Contemporary Issues (UNV180) will provide students with a clear sense of the university's mission. It will enrich their understanding of the role of various academic disciplines in preparing them to become world changers, and will provide a clear challenge early in their academic career to do so."
The university itself says the purpose of the class is to give the student a clear sense of the university's mission. I'm not making that claim, merely repeating a claim made by the university.Eastshire (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure most college course descriptions explain why the course is important. You still can't find one reliable source about this course... it really seems to be something that is not very important. --Rividian (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain your reasoning on why the IWU catalog is not a reliable source on the content of a course offered at IWU? Remember that the bar isn't general notability. The university has said this class is important. In fact they say you can't graduate without it. Seems fairly important to me.Eastshire (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Because this is an encyclopedia article, not a course listing. You say it "seems fairly important" to you, that's the whole problem... you want the section in because you think it's important, not because you can find any credible source that thinks it's important. --Rividian (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, The university itself says this is important. Do you dispute that? I am fully aware that this is an encyclopedia article, not a course listing, which is why the course listing is used a source not copied word for word into the article. I ask again: Do you think the university is wrong when they say this course is important to us? Eastshire (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, that this is an encyclopedia article doesn't change whether or not a university catalog is a reliable source for the description of a class. Further, a university catalog is the only source for the description of a class.Eastshire (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If the university had a separate document that said "This is our most important class", then that would mean something. But course descriptions always explain why a course is important, so it seems like you're drawing an original conclusion from a course description that really wasn't meant to be taken that way. --Rividian (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
So your contention is that IWU uses the phrase "will provide students with a clear sense of the university's mission." in every class description? That's ludicrous. The description of the class is hey, here's where we tell you what we think. No other class at the university has that description. Basically, you are accusing the university of lying in the catalog.Eastshire (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well this is going nowhere. Ultimately you will need to get people other than fly-by-night accounts anyone could have created to agree with your position. So far that doesn't seem to be happening. --Rividian (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is going no where, but what I need is for people to stop deleting material that is factual, reliably sourced and verifiable. And I still say that a university catalog is the most reliable source available for the purpose of a class given there.Eastshire (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
No one's deleting anything. The page's been protected. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right because it wasn't deleted right before it was protected, oh wait it was.Eastshire (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection is not an endorsement of one version or another; it's to prevent people like yourself from edit warring. Even if you do not violate the spirit of 3RR, editors can be blocked for dragging it out over a series of days or weeks. Let's not go down that path. seicer | talk | contribs 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that material that was verifiable and reliable sourced was deleted before you locked the page. I am currently compiling more sources to further demonstrate the cornerstone nature of the World Changers course to the university, and to expand the section to cover its nearly 10 year history as the main focus of the university.
As a temporary measure, I purpose the following be added to the article. Sources for now would be the IWU catalog for the vision statement and the goal of the Becoming World Changers course.
Indiana Wesleyan University vision statement is to "prepare each student to become a world changer. We will accomplish this by drawing students into an integrated experience of intellectual challenge, spiritual growth, and leadership development." In order to communicate that vision to its students, IWU requires all freshman, beginning during the 1999-2000 school year, to take Becoming World Changers: Christian Faith and Contemporary Issues (UNV180) Beginning with the 2008-2009 academic year, IWU adopted The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical by Shane Claiborne, a controversial Christian author, as a required textbook for its World Changers course
ThanksEastshire (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a big step in the right direction but I still see no reason why we should even mention this textbook. For the umpteenth time: Do you have any reliable sources that explain why it's necessary to mention this one textbook in this encyclopedia article? Remember, there's got to be a really good reason to include info in this (or any other) article. It has to be foundational to understanding the topic or somehow really interesting or compelling. And we generally aren't the ones who decide if the material is foundational, interesting, or compelling; we rely on second- and third-party sources and authors to do that. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Like I've said, it's important due to the importance the university places on the class. I am currently going through the archives of The Triangle, IWU's magazine, and the archives of IWU's President's Report, both of which are available back to 1999 online at http://www.indwes.edu/alumni/triangle.aspx When I finish going through those I want to expand the section to show why the university has made World Changers a cornerstone. At that time I hope to have 2-3 good paragraph's on World changers in addition to listing the three books (including Irresistible Revolution) the university has used to this point.
Believe me, I will be more than able to show, via The Triangle and the President's Reports, that the university believes World Changers to be foundational. Eastshire (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected Again

I have protected the article again as the edit warring is continuing. Please establish a consensus and then contact me or request unprotection. KnightLago (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some discussion or some argument for a consensus here. I haven't read through all the discussion above, but if there is no further comment I will have to determine consensus from past discussion and enforce that. The edit warring can not go on forever, nor can the article be protected forever. KnightLago (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I still can't see why the textbook should be mentioned in this article. I know it's used in a course that's taught in the university, and that it's popular in terms of regular enrollment. However, notability as to why this should be covered in the university's article has never been mentioned. Notability cannot be transferred through association. Saying since this book is used in a course in the university, and that book is controversial, does not mean the notability of the university should cover this book. I will restate what I have said before: it is the responsibility of the editor providing new information to defend the new material with properly cited reliable, verifiable sources. We have already established that the section Eastshire wants to place in the university's article would be more appropriate if it was in the textbook's Wikipedia article, not the university's. With these things in mind, continued edit warring will not gain consensus. Just more non-constructive anger. This article isn't going to, and shouldn't need to be protected forever. Either a compromise needs to be reached, or that entire section needs to be removed. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Having read the whole discussion above, I fail to see why this remains an issue. There is clear and broad consensus from many established and respected editors that the alleged "controversy" is non-notable, original research promulgated by an editor with a clear POV and the passage should be stripped out until a source more reputable than a screed on a blog covers this (trivial) issue. Refer any editors who continue to edit in violation of the consensus or are otherwise engaging in wikilawyering for more formal sanctions. Let's get back to writing an encyclopedia, not entertaining POV warriors' tempests in teapots. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It remains an issue because 2 accounts are apparently willing to edit war to make it an issue. Sadly de facto and de jure policy seems to back them up... as long as they don't make more than 3 reverts per account per day, all that can really be done is keep the article locked. A sad state of affairs. --Rividian (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected the article. Consensus is clear that until such a time as there are verifiable reliable sources the "controversy" in question does not belong in the article. The issue of undue weight has also been raised. I am not going to address it now, but should reliable third party sources be found it must be considered. Please discuss issues on the talk page and avoid edit warring. Future edit warring over this issue will be viewed unfavorably. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Large-scale edits reverted

I have reverted a set of edits by Inquietudeofcharacter, not because i disagree with them en masse, but because they were bold, and i suggest we start discussion now, here. I'm notifying Inquietudeofcharacter and Flavius Constantine, as they seem most involved. Let's make this a great article! Cheers, LindsayHi 04:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I am willing to consider editing a few minor wordings that may appear a bit non-NPOV (to be discussed here, word-by-word first), but definitely will not allow massive changes as User:Inquietudeofcharacter did today. Deleting 90% of a large, established article that has had several editors contribute to it and has been largely unchanged over the past 2 years is completely unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. In all my time on Wikipedia, I have never seen a user do anything like that. Furthermore, the article has received numerous compliments for how in-depth and professional it is for such a small college, from a variety of editors and administrators. I am only one of several editors who have poured in hours of work making this article better (including removing non-NPOV edits by clearly-biased users). I looked over User:Inquietudeofcharacter's edit history, and it appears that this is not the first time he has created controversy with small college articles - it seems to be his specialty. I note small colleges, because he knows that he will face heavy opposition if he attempts to massively edit large university articles. Well, this is one small college article that he will face steep opposition from if he attempts to massively change it again. User:Inquietudeofcharacter, I would highly suggest moving on to another random small college article. Pushing this won't be worth the hassle. Thanks. Flavius Constantine (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I will not allow smacks of WP:OWN. It is not up to a single editor to decide what will or will not be allowed. Woogee (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That's all I asked for. I never said that I owned the article. In fact, I made it clear that I worked with several editors on this article. It was User:Inquietudeofcharacter who, completely on his own, decided to change an entire established article in one day, without a single comment on the discussion page. The facts speak for themselves. Flavius Constantine (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Inquietude seems to only be editing college related articles, which isn't bad in an of itself, but it can create a bias in editing sometimes if you don't get to branch out. Also, some of the colleges that he has edited are tiny, but that isn't concerning. I don't see complaints about his edits and he seems to be a productive editor. I ran into him a few months ago, and he helped me a bit, so I'm sure he will surely do the same here. The mass shrinkage is concerning though, but I'm sure that you guys working this out will cause some of the page to shrink anyways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Kevin. Flavius Constantine (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm back! Sorry if my edits upset anyone; that's really not what I was going for, although I was certainly going with the whole idea of WP:BOLD (didn't think I was being too bold!). What I was trying to do was to make the article better formatted per WP:UNIGUIDE, more WP:NPOV, include more sources per WP:RS, et cetera. I honestly didn't check to see how long the article had been "established" and I didn't notice a tag showing it had undergone peer review, or that it'd met the Featured/Good/A-class article standards. I did notice that most of the sources were IWU sources -- not third-party sources -- and I've since tried to add more. There seemed to be a pretty clear POV bent to the article as well. A few highlights:
  • The seal belongs in the top of the infobox and the logo belongs at the bottom, per the Infobox parameters and UNIGUIDE.
  • The lead listed degrees, which is a no-no per UNIGUIDE. Schools, sure, but not degrees. Those belong in an Academics section (even then, a list of majors is a no-no, which thankfully this lead didn't have), which the article in its current (that is, before my edits) form doesn't have. Adding an Academics section one is also an attempt to standardize and improve the article per UNIGUIDE. I also, if I'm not mistaken, added a Campus section, as well.
  • There were claims such as "largest private university in Indiana," "largest member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities," and "second-largest evangelical university in the United States in total students, second only to Liberty University," that were all uncited. Information is good, but WP:VERIFY is required. It's easy to promote schools with original research and unverified material, but that also goes against WP:OR.
  • The history was largely uncited and included an incredible amount of detail, even to a big history buff like me. I added some history, with a proper source, and deleted unsourced bits about specific presidencies. Sorry if that upsets anyone.
  • Most of the sources were IWU sources, as I said. At least 16 out of the current 22. Those just aren't "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources".
  • Some of the content seemed non-notable except from a promotion standpoint. The Society of World Changers didn't say much about IWU itself, though it did give a reason to list a lot of notable persons and their articles. But it was in a table format and got its own heading. There was also a huge gallery of photos, which wasn't necessary or ideal. I kept the oldest building, original from Marion Normal, and the chapel, which seemed especially relevant for the "second largest evangelical university in the U.S."[citation needed] ;-)
  • There was other subjective language, uncited except perhaps by non-NPOV sources: "total enrollment has grown tremendously the past 20 years," and all that. Maybe I think it's tremendous, but NPOV would seem to dictate that we offer factual statements. I'd be different, of course, if the New York Times could be quoted as such on the matter.
  • Honors are great, but they all used IWU sources. Rankings and such are commonly placed under academics, or other relevant sections, instead of receiving their own heading.
  • Athletics was also prominently featured but offered little in the way of third-party, reliable sources, if any. I'm a stickler for sources, I know, but this is an encyclopedia after all and WP:V can't simply be disregarded! If you want the info. then you'll need to at least try to meet the burden of proof -- it's very clear that applies to anyone who "adds or restores material".
  • In addition to adding some history, I also added some information to the Infobox and tried to standardize some of the other parameters there.
I need to go, but I'm sure I've forgotten some things. Overall, I'd suggest using the version after my edits, since it meets UNIGUIDE in ways that the current version doesn't, and add to it in ways that are acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines -- burden of proof (supports this idea since reverting uncited material is a no-no), finding reliable sources, et cetera. Let me know if I need to provide any more info. or if I've imagined any of what I've already provided, haha. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! It's been two days since I provided a guidelines-based rationale for my edits, but I haven't heard any arguments against the edits, except that it may have been too WP:BOLD and made the article smaller. I'll plan on changing it back if there's no response in the next few days. Oh, and for the record, not only is I note small colleges, because he knows that he will face heavy opposition if he attempts to massively edit large university articles. an assumption of bad faith (did it ever occur to you that I edit small colleges as well as big because there are fewer people maintaining those articles properly?), but the statement that Well, this is one small college article that he will face steep opposition from if he attempts to massively change it again. User:Inquietudeofcharacter, I would highly suggest moving on to another random small college article. Pushing this won't be worth the hassle. sounds a lot like a threat to me, not a desire for collaborative process. I'm assuming good faith here, but please adhere to WP:CIVIL in addition to checking out WP:UNIGUIDE. Telling people to just go away is really not cool at all. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Back at you. I agree it's been a couple of days; i've been ridiculously busy at work, so this is the first time i've dropped in here with any ability to even see what's happening. I noted your (Inquietude's) response a couple of days ago, and was hoping that Flavius would have added to the discussion. Unfortunately, i see not. Nor has the article been edited since my revert of a few days ago, i notice.
Personally, i have no dog in this race, as they might say, but probably don't, and don't plan to edit again. I have to suggest, strongly, Flavius, that you start to discuss the very reasonable, certainly reasonably put, points that Inquietude has made. I also second his concern about, at the very least, the appearance of your attitude of possessiveness. I like to assume correctly, so i expect that you can be coöperative, no? Cheers, LindsayHi 19:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that I haven't been able to respond right away, but I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. Here are my responses point by point.

1. I'm fine with putting the seal at the top of the infobox and will do so myself. 2. I'll also move the degrees to a new academics section. I didn't put them in the lead section anyway. 3. I will find and add new sources regarding the largest private university in Indiana and largest member in the CCCU, since these are important facts. And with a school of more than 15,000 students, the university's website is a legitimate source for Wikipedia. And that's not promoting the school. Check out all the official university website sources for the USC article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_California 4. Sorry to go back to the USC article, but check how much of its history section is unsourced. Everyone knows that you don't need to cite every sentence on Wikipedia. I'll look over it and edit it accordingly, but your comments are mostly your personal opinion. 5. See response #3. This isn't a D1 school with hundreds of sources online. If only 3rd party sources were used the article would be 1 paragraph, so be realistic. 6. Absolutely your own opinion not backed by Wiki policies. You're on thin ice here man. I mean, "There was also a huge gallery of photos, which wasn't necessary or ideal." According to who? Check out all the photos in the USC article. IWU is widely known for its campus, so it's obviously relevant to show pics of it. So don't delete any of them. And one of the school's primary goals is to "create World Changers," (check out their website) of which the Society of World Changers is a centerpiece of the university. 7. I'll go through the article and remove all the non-NPOV language. Like I said, I didn't write everything in the article. 8. I'll put the honors under the academic section. 9. A citation is given that clearly shows every championship listed on the tables - did you even look at the source? And a small paragraph and 2 tables showing the school's championships, listed at the bottom of the article, hardly qualifies as "prominently featured." In fact, we moved the athletics information to its own article, leaving only the basic, important information. And again, with a non-NCAA D1 school, where else will you get sources for sports? It's not like ESPN is covering NAIA schools. It's here where you are really being unrealistic and unreasonable again. 10."In addition to adding some history, I also added some information to the Infobox." You mean by deleting 90" of what was established for 2 years and adding a couple worthless paragraphs? You didn't even mention that IWU is an evangelical Christian university! And how do you figure that deleting basic college info like the school newspaper from the infobox is "adding information"?

As I said before and given your past actions, since I am an established editor of this article and have poured in dozens of hours improving it (and since you just noticed it), I will do the edits myself, and we can discuss them here. Don't start restoring your mass-deletions/edits. And that's not a threat. I (along with other editors) helped build this extensive article for over 2 years, so naturally, I'm going to be a bit upset when a new user comes in and deletes almost all of our hard work in one day, without one comment on this discussion board! You still have failed to address that - even the unbiased users have criticized that. And your trying to accuse me of ownership, when your actions speak so clearly? Please. Flavius Constantine (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made numerous changes to the article, including some that you did not mention. I'll continue to work on it over the coming weeks - this doesn't need to be done in one day. In the mean time, why don't you check out a college article that really does need some major work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Christian_College. And there's dozens of other school pages that really do need urgent attention, rather than one that is meticulously maintained like this one. Wouldn't your energies be better spent on those? Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: 1 &2 -- Insisting on making the edits yourself still doesn't feel collaborative.
Re: 3 -- Excellent! But if they're IWU sources then they're still not third-party, as WP:V says they should be. And citing other articles isn't enough; we use guidelines, not other articles (especially not articles that don't meet guidelines and/or haven't gone through peer review/GA nomination!).
Re: 4 -- Pointing to a poorly written and poorly sourced article that doesn't meet WP:UNIGUIDE doesn't excuse other articles from meeting Wikipedia guidelines.
Re: 5 -- You might be surprised if you do the research. Unfortunately, if you can't establish notability with third-party reliable sources then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See WP:V and WP:RS.
Re: 6 -- Interesting tone. WP:IUP and WP:MOSIMAGES tell you that such galleries are to be avoided. The article is, in my opinion, not better for having a large collection of photos (that's what a Wikimedia Commons link is for). And if you insist on using examples then use the right ones; UNIGUIDE's example articles (featured articles, specifically) don't use galleries for campus images. I also didn't delete any photos. And saying "we want to create world changers" doesn't mean a "society of world changers" who aren't otherwise affiliated with the school merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article.
Re: 7 -- Good! The fact that you didn't write it doesn't mean you can't remove it -- and you must remove non-NPOV language.
Re: 8 -- Excellent, but you still need to find the third-party sources. Moving them to the Academics section meets WP:UNIGUIDE but not WP:RS/WP:V.
Re: 9 -- You should be able to find important sports information in newspapers. I've done so for much smaller schools with far less to boast about. It's not an unreasonable request to meet WP:V.
Re: 10 -- Again, the length of time information has been part of an article is irrelevant in this case. Simply adding more is not acceptable on Wikipedia! Removal of uncited or improperly added material is not only allowed on Wikipedia but, in some cases, encouraged.
Removing the newspaper is a rather minor point. It can stay, it can go; whatever upsets you less, I suppose. It's a free label, not part of the parameters of the infobox, and few other institutions use that as a free label. And we can always tweak whatever language you're referring to. I'd love to be a part of collaborative process. I'm far more concerned about following guidelines here, and about your open hostility to me.
Please be WP:CIVIL and refrain from casting any other aspersion on other editors. I tried to follow both WP:BOLD and WP:UNIGUIDE in my edits. Telling editors to go away and edit other articles is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's been six days with no response. I intend to start editing again, and I hope to encounter a more collaborative spirit, one that's in line with the guidelines for editing on Wikipedia. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
What response? You made suggestions, I responded with corresponding edits, and said that I would continue working on it over the next few weeks, and you responded to my edits. Like I said, this doesn't need to be done in one week. What's the rush? And the fact that not one editor has responded to your "urgent plea" on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities discussion page is very telling. Clearly, you don't have the widespread backing that you assume you have. Other users just don't share your opinion that the article needs widespread changes. Flavius Constantine (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Any response. The fact that no one has responded at UNI doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means, but I'd agree that I don't have "widespread backing" -- why would I? I certainly haven't used the phrase "urgent plea" anywhere. Ignoring my points, treating me like crap, and demanding that I go elsewhere is a clear violation of Wiki-policy. I haven't edited regularly in months, and I'd go so far as to say that you're being a bully. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Smith Resignation

This information isn't verified or sourced:

During the 2012-2013 school year, IWU President Dr. Henry L. Smith was controversially forced to step down by the IWU Board of Trustees amid disagreements about finances. During his tenure, Dr. Smith focused aggressively on growth, and many members of the board feared that the university was straying from its Christ-centered roots. The IWU Board of Trustees chose IWU Provost Dr. David Wright to assume the presidency, with Dr. Smith remaining as Chancellor of the University. Dr. Wright held his first day in office on July 1, 2013.

I work for IWU, so I will not make edits to the page myself. But if a reliable source can't be found for this information, I'm not sure it should be on here. --sevenfoursevennine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.24.24 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have requested citations. I'd say the editor has the burden to prove that the move was controversial; that Dr. Smith did not resign of his own free will; that the reasoning behind the resignation was related to finances; and that Smith focused on growth and that a reliable source verifies the concern of the board members regarding the direction of the university. We also needed a citation regarding the transition from president to chancellor, and the succession of Dr. Wright. Clarkatim (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Hey all - Not sure why this page does not have notable alumni. I am attempting to start the section, but I need help. Thus far, the only person I am aware of is Brandon Beachy. Please help! Clarkatim (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indiana 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiana 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) 15:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Indiana 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) 11:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indiana 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) 07:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiana 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) 23:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indiana_Wesleyan_University/Archive_1&oldid=1182727865"