Jump to content

Talk:Loma Linda University/Archive 1

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

Conflicts and Controversy

I added this category since I don't think these issues have been addressed. I have a certain amount of familiarity with the school and tried to include links to outside articles supporting everything in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathankincaid (talk • contribs) 03:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed this category. I'm all for fairness, but this category is not present in other university teaching hospital pages. The information was biased and unhelpful.Dustinjones (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is about a university, not just a teaching hospital. Other schools do have similar information which gives a more rounded view rather than what a school's promotional department may publish (Baylor for example.) Wikipedia advocates a neutral point of view and I have stated fact, not opinion, and sourced all of it. If there is additional information that I was not aware of, I am sure it is more than welcome to be added to this article, as is all relevant, sourceable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.216.75 (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The area of conflicts and controversy is obviously biased with several mistakes and misspellings throughout. The "supporting" links refer to pages that are loosely connected to the topic. For example, the wiki author posts that LLU received a settlement because of its proximity to a Ronald McDonald House. The "supporting" link is to the homepage of the Ronald McDonald House in Loma Linda. This isn't how supporting documents works. I feel that this section needs some serious work and by someone who is not biased.

Information that is regarding the medical center should go on the wiki page for the medical center and should be removed from the University page. Furthermore, when posting to the discussion page, please sign your comments. Dustinjones (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to repair any mistakes and misspellings if you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathankincaid (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

this section not is fair or objective, and need to be changed to neutral point of view. the article as a whole need be fleshed and made organized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.42.135.25 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is all sourced and all references are provided, do you object to the factuality or is there some other reason for your repeated deletions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathankincaid (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is factual, sourced, and referenced does not mean that it is appropriate as an encyclopedic entry. This does not describe the university or fairly represents it, therefore it should be removed. This is not relevant to the school. If a murder took place on the campus of Harvard University, should it be part of its wiki entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namja (talk • contribs) 08:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is completely incorrect. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Scandals" section just doesn't seem appropriate or 100% neutral. Who cares that a woman was fired after becoming pregnant out of wedlock? The University was found to be justified in the court, so case dismissed. BTW, any private religious organization has the same rights, nothing special about Loma Linda there. While I was investigating other universities on Wikipedia, I did not immediately find any that had a "Scandals" section. In my attempt to figure out what the source of all of this is, I reviewed Johnathankincaid's contributions, and for some reason, they are mostly involving negative material against Loma Linda University, Ellen G. White, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Wikipedia is hardly the place for one to take out all of their negative feelings against an organization. I must question his motives and neutrality since I do not see too many other constructive edits or contributions on the project. Jonathan, please enlighten us as to your appeared "beef" with the University and why a possible personal issue should be reflected in an encyclopedia with so much negativity. (BTW, this edit warring and reverting is frowned upon in the wiki community, and does not help your cause, whatever that may be.) Brianweedster (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is much information not listed on this webpage that is listed on other university webpages. I am not intimately familiar with all aspects of the university, and many things can be added such as an expanded history section, however noone has seemed to take the time to add it. Also, anything that I added that is not sourced can be removed, I am ok with that. As far as biased, I present a different view than others might, however members of the Universities promotional department have been banned for repeatedly vandalizing this page, so I think its a bit unfair to come down on me as the unbiased one. Also, the case of Arriga is considered an important case in the church-vs-state arugument. If you believe that the university has the right to fire people for these things, that is your opinion and the courts support it. However, since they do I don't understand why you would have a problem with it being on the page. I did not title the section "Scandals" someone else did. I agree that it is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathankincaid (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: the McDonald's fry thing is very strange in its position. Why would it be considered a scandal for LLU? The references don't really explain the situation to be a "scandal" or cast the University in any negative light whatsoever. If this paragraph should be kept (I doubt it should be since it is irrelevant), it should be in a list of grants, awards, funding sources, or similarly named section. Brianweedster (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I didn't call it a scandal, it was changed after my entry. If you would like to create a funding section, that would greatly contribute to the article's content (obviously this article needs more information added to it for completeness.) I would appreciate it if you would refrain from attacking me personally and assuming a "beef" or personal issue with the university (which I agree should be handled differently than a Wikipedia edit.) Also, my personal opinion is that this article lacks an enormous amount of substance and would like to see informed contributors add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathankincaid (talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The section regarding the Arriga case has been debated endlessly and was moderated by a Wiki moderator and it was decided non-news. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. So quit adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.250.234 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

On the Alumni

Should we keep the notable alumni section as is? For every other wikipedia article that discusses notable alumni, it just links their name to a separate page, and doesn't make a giant table of them. In any case, I'll try and help out with typos and other stuff also Minnyhaha (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. It is pretty ugly and difficult to maintain. I would vote for a simpler listing. Brianweedster (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

We need to establish neutrality within articles related to the Seventh-day Adventist church. In several articles beyond having a simple discription of what the link leads to there is a litigation report or something the Adventist did wrong. Can we just post, this includes Fermion, articles that are objective to listing facts and not distorted representation. For example on the Loma Linda University page you list were it is located, what its mission statement is, and Oh Yeah . . . it was in such and such court hearing on discrimination charges. What about spending time on listing what it has to offer like departments, schools, programs, leaders, teachers, deans, etc. Who cares that they fired someone. Some people may be using wikipedia as a source of information about a school. They may be deciding to go there in the future and your article is not helping them get objective information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.183.8 (talk • contribs) .

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia editors are required to assume good faith in their fellow editors. Your claim based on a few edits that had clear reasons based in Wikipedia policies, is not well gounded. Ansell 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason people care is because this is an issue that comes up within the local and national community concerning this school, especially among staff and students. This case is well-documented and any opposing views/information are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathankincaid (talk • contribs) 03:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an issue only to people who have something against the university. Do you see a Controvery section at Harvard? UCLA? Notre Dame? This is a personal vendetta that you have against the school and it is not appropriate for a wiki entry. 17:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namja (talk • contribs)
There's nothing wrong with a controversy section for this article regardless of whether you agree with it or not. If it's sourced from reliable sources, the content should be allowed to stay and is perfectly "appropriate for a wiki entry". Comparing it to other articles about other colleges/universities means nothing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Just because something is sourced does not make it relevant. There was a murder on the campus of Harvard University (pbs.org). Some of the details are even on the Harvard University's website. Should this well sourced material be part of an encyclopedic entry for Harvard? I don't think so. It is not relevant. Anyway, this doesn't look like it will be resolved here. I will submit this for third opinion. namja (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a third opinion. I came here because there were accusations of vandalism by you. I guess because you don't like it, you'd like to find the "third opinion" that agrees with you. And, yes, there's nothing necessarily wrong with having that murder mentioned in the Harvard article. It's mentioned in a subarticle of Harvard which I found linked to from the Harvard University article. There's even an entire article about the murder. So, let's try again. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I reread the sections a bit more thoroughly and to a certain point, I now agree with Namja: they are unnecessary cruft, so I've removed some of them altogether. In order to be neutral, articles should show the good and the bad, but most of that was... just useless crap. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please indent your comments

This talk page is very hard to read. Please indent your comments/replies with the appropriate number of colons (:) when replying to another comment. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's another example. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Loma Linda 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 20:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Loma Linda 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 01:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Loma Linda 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) 12:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loma Linda 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) 10:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Loma Linda 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) 10:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loma_Linda_University/Archive_1&oldid=1214864817"