Talk:Olivet Nazarene University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creation controversy

Someone should deal with the current creation controversy, reported [1] by Newsweek's Begley. JA 22:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about it before I hit the road for the weekend. I can start something and we can work together to make sure I'm NPOV if you like. Aepoutre 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the evolution-creation section because it was written with a clear bias toward the situation, including noting the two gentlemen opposed having honorary doctorates and explicitly stating they have no scientific background. My opinion on this doesn't matter, what DOES matter is that the section is written fairly and objectively, which it obviously is not. I am deleting the section again with the hopes of causing someone to rewrite the section from a fair perspective. Ban me if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.225.12 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

There are some recent issues with disruptive edits, made by new user User:Fountainviewkid here and at Richard G. Colling that don't follow the MOS, per WP:ALLEGED, by introducing "expressions of doubt" -- "allegedly" and "so-called" in these cases. The material is documented and verified using reliable sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V but the editor in question seems to be making a clear POV push away from verifiability. It looks like a textbook issue, but I may have acted foolishly and pushed this to the level of edit warring. I'd like to take a time-out and chat about this. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to bring the article to a more neutral viewpoint.By adding "expressions of doubt" I am allowing for the unclear details. Since this is a religious organization we cannot expect the Association of Higher Ed. to fully understand the Nazarene view of "academic freedom". I therefore wish to purposely make this more ambiguous rather than pushing biased phrasing like "placed above". I also added language to give a bit more explanation since "two fundamentalist ministers" is also a biased phrase. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid, I appreciate that you're trying to bring the article to a more neutral viewpoint. However, Wikipedia guidelines show you how to do that, and your edits do not adhere to those guidelines. Please refer to WP:ALLEGED, which states that such terminology "can imply that a given point is inaccurate." The information contained in these articles is supported by reliable sources, and Wikipedia is based on verifiability. To introduce "expressions of doubt" that effectively place your POV over already-neutral RSs is not following Wiki guidelines and does not, despite your well-intentioned efforts, maintain "a more neutral viewpoint." Feel free to quote the sources directly, if you like, but please do not introduce inappropriate "expressions of doubt". --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Inquietudeofcharacter, I appreciate how you try to keep pages clean of questionable phrasing, but the guidelines clearly allow for such words if the situation allows. Yes the sources are "reliable" however they are also biased (more in the manner in how they are quoted, however). The RS's are not "already-neutral" therefore I insert language to at least bring biased statement into doubt. If you want I could introduce opposite sources, but I don't really feel like making the article page a debate. If you can rephrase terms such as "two fundamentalist ministers" then maybe I could accept your changes. Unfortunately, however I have seen no attempt from you to restate words in a neutral viewpoint. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How do the guidelines "clearly allow for such words if the situation allows"? Could you be more specific? I see that Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. But no one is currently on trial here -- we have a reliable Inside Higher Ed source and a closed AAUP investigation (both seem good enough for Wikipedia, according to RS). While you're right that the article shouldn't focus on this one point -- perhaps another separate article is warranted -- the burden of proof is on you to see that the other side is represented if you're the one who feels that it isn't currently. There are reliable sources being used and terms to which you object are pulled from those sources -- "fundamentalist" is used more than once in one of the sources, not to introduce bias but to accurately describe the subjects! I already think it's written with NPOV in mind. And, so far, you haven't effectively disputed that your expressions of doubt are warranted (claims that the sources are biased just don't cut it). --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry until you edit the terminology to be less biased I am not convinced. "Fundamenatlist" is a debatable term. I could add other sources which give other terms. It is not written NPOV. The article accuses the President of "placing concerns of 2 Fundamentalist ministers above his own school's principles". This is clearly a debatable statement, hence the term "alleged" is appropriate. He has been accused, but this accusation has not been proven. You have not demonstrated that you are writing NPOV, hence expressions of doubt are needed. If you attempted to insert NPOV phrasing there would be no debate. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please format your comments to facilitate discussion. And do not presume that I will edit text for you if I think it's neutral enough already. I certainly don't own this article. It's your job to edit the text you disagree with, using reliable sources and avoiding expressions of doubt -- that's against guidelines and your claims about some sort of loophole aren't valid if you can't answer my questions and prove it to me. There are reliable sources used here, and you so far don't have an argument against the neutrality of the text other than the fact that you consider the word "fundamentalist" to be negative. The word describes individuals who are fundamentalist (as in, adherents of fundamentalist Christianity), and it's taken from the source, so your objections seem unfounded. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are not neutral. Until they become that way I will keep my neutral editing. I have edited this article, but I had to add expressions of doubt because there were clearly unproven allegations in the reliable sources you used. Until you remove the unproven allegation I cannot remove my objections. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Present a cogent argument, please. We're not talking about my edits, we're talking about your edits and a previous version that's already been discussed, edited, and vandalized before, so stop avoiding my claims that your edits don't meet guidelines by snapping back that I'm not neutral. I'm being as neutral as I can possibly be, by using sources to present verifiable facts. Have you read either WP:VERIFY or WP:ALLEGED? You don't need to add expressions of doubt -- the WP:MOS says they're to be avoided. You keep making claims about bias in reliable sources, but simply claiming that I'm not neutral and that reliable sources aren't reliable isn't an argument. You also haven't presented any reason why what you call "allegations" are "unproven". It looks like we might need a third party to weigh in on this one. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The conclusions from the official report of the American Association of University Professors support the version without the term "alleged". Both the AAUP and publication Inside Higher Education are reliable sources. If there is another reliable source that contradicts these conclusions, then further discussion should take place on this talk page. Until then, the conclusion by the AAUP should stand without any qualifiers. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I revised the wording. The administration received pressure from more than just the two named superintendents, so I broadened that part. Also, the AAUP did not conclude that the administration allegedly placed constituent relations above academic freedom, the conclusion was that the administration actually did so. The section identifies that this is the conclusion of the AAUP report (and that is what it is), so it is neutral. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Alanraywiki for that clarification on the views of the constituency. 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Fountainviewkid (talk)

Yes, thanks for taking the time to help out here! --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again

Hurray! More drama via an unexplained revert! My favourite! Fountainviewkid, please feel free to try explaining your edits here -- if I've misunderstood then I apologise in advance, but using the undo feature without any explanation whatsoever is frowned upon, and I don't see why making content not reflect sources seems so appealing to you. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup I finally make some changes that both Alanraywiki and I can agree with, but you have to come and keep pushing your bias in here. What's wrong with adding the reasons for Colling's dismissal? You seem to only want certain facts, and not other ones. The denomination is for the most part opposed to the teaching of evolution (at least in the format Colling was trying to push). I already edited the changes that you didn't like, but I guess you won't be happy until the article reflects only your bias.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, since I haven't seen any comments from Alanraywiki since your latest edits. You're speaking on behalf of other editors now? This source confirms that some constituents were upset:

At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college. In a letter to Bowling, ministers in Caro, Mo., expressed "deep concern regarding the teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientifically proven fact," calling it "a philosophy that is godless, contrary to scripture and scientifically unverifiable." Irate parents, pastors and others complained to Bowling, while a meeting between church leaders and Colling "led to some tension and misunderstanding," Bowling said in a letter to trustees.

But it also verifies that the official Nazarene stance is not what you say:

An odd aspect of the controversy over Colling is that, since its founding in 1908, the Church of the Nazarene has deemed knowledge acquired by science and human inquiry equal to that acquired by divine revelation. And although Nazarene theology "believes in the Biblical account of creation" and holds that God is the sole creator, it allows latitude "regarding the 'how' of creation," as president Bowling put it in a letter to trustees.

Another source specifically says that some constituents were upset:

A biologist who is very much a person of faith, these punishments followed anger by some religious supporters of the college over the publication of his book in which he argues that it is possible to believe in God and still accept evolution.

And it also points out the official church stance isn't anti-evolution:

Official church policy (confirmed by a spokeswoman for the university) states as follows: "The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation ('In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ....' Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind. However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator."

Furthermore, that source goes on to reaffirm that some, not all or even most, were upset:

Colling's story (confirmed by AAUP officials who have been investigating the case) is that trouble started last summer, as word about his views spread to some conservative churches in the denomination, and word reached him that some trustees wanted him fired. But President John C. Bowling came to his defense, and nothing happened.

Yet another source refers specifically to "some conservative Nazarene churches" -- not the entire Church of the Nazarene. The AAUP report tells us that this is a controversial matter and that not everyone agrees. That's why sticking to the sources is so important here. Introducing expressions of doubt isn't called for here, as you have already agreed it isn't, and the only way to stay neutral is to stick to the sources. According to the sources, we can't say that there were "accusations that he was teaching against the denomination's views on creation" since the sources clearly express a contradiction there. We also can't say that "the denomination's constituency in the Church of the Nazarene" was the driving force, since it was only one part ("conservative", "anti-evolutionist", or "fundamentalist" elements within a very broad denomination), as confirmed by the sources. Am I pushing POV here, or am I really just pushing verifiability? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes that should reflect more neutral terminology. Oh, and he was accused of teaching against the "denomination's views on creation". We may debate what those views are, but there is evidence that he was accused of this by some more Conservative members. If you want I can add "by conservatives in the group" or something of that effect. Finally, to answer your last question, you are doing both. You are pushing POV and verifiability. You are right on the verifiability, but there should be a way for something to be restated to stay neutral. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I see what is meant by "accusations that he was teaching against the denomination's views on creation." I suppose that those were the accusations, from one party with a particular point of view -- the problem is that, since the sources very intentionally point out a potential conflict there, we also need to point out the conflict if we're to be true to the verifiable information about the event. That's why we also need to point out that it was certain elements that made the accusations, not the denomination as a whole, or even an agreed-upon standard -- without pointing out the source of those accusations, it makes it seem like those were the denomination's views. That's neutrality.

2) Also, "many" still isn't the word I see used in the sources -- it's "some". Without satisfying the burden of proof when using that word, it seems more like POV pushing than anything.

3) I find it hard to see how my desire to stick to verifiable information that comes from reliable third-party sources could be anything but neutral. I suppose that only I can know my true intentions, but I'm pretty sure that WP:V exists, in part, to promote WP:NPOV. So how do you come to the conclusion that, by upholding standards, I seek to undermine them? That seems like quite a twisted assumption of bad faith. I'm really just trying to be fair and balanced, by editing according to guidelines. A "neutrality" that defies those guidelines isn't really neutral. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes "verifiability" can be biased. Just because a source says something a certain way doesn't mean that source is neutral. You assume that WP:V=WP:NPOV. That is a false assumption. I do prefer both WP:V & WP:NPOV, and I see you doing the first but not the second. It is possible that by doing the first you might sometimes undermine the second. The solution to this problem, I believe, is to make certain edits (as I did). As for your last question. Did you know you committed a logical fallacy. You concluded what you are trying to assume. You also accused me falsely. Both of these problems are found in the terminology you used "upholding standards...undermine them". You used words I did not. I never said that by "upholding standards you are undermining them". Remember there is more than one standard to uphold. This is not simply a twisted assumption of bad faith. Instead it is a simple fact of human discussion and circumstance. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. But if we assume that we're both interested in NPOV, WP:V still needs to be met here -- one can't change verifiable terminology this way. That's why the "verifiability not truth" clause is so important -- individual truth (which we all possess, in spite of our best efforts to be neutral) is tempered by reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source then great, but using terminology like "many" where the sources say "some" doesn't meet WP:V and sends a message that isn't unsupported by the sources, either (now, I could be missing something here, but you haven't provided any quotes to support the use of "many" here... in fact, the only use of the word "many" in these sources refers to a single person's perspective on the matter -- all the other sources say "some" but never "many"). Changing the terminology used in the sources to words that reliable sources don't use is not neutral -- it violates both NPOV (because there's valid disagreement here, no matter what one assumes about motives) and VERIFY (because it simply doesn't match the sources!). And while I understand the idea that some constituents made accusations that Colling was teaching against denominational views, WP:NPOV only works against that language here -- NPOV "requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." The source material we have here (as demonstrated by the quotes I included above) present those "allegations" as a) contradictory and b) not a majority (and majority is what improper use of the word "many" instead of "some" implies). I want to make this neutral and it needs to be neutral -- but it needs to meet VERIFY, too -- so you need find reliable sources if you want to keep the current language. You can't defy VERIFY in an attempt to meet NPOV; you can't defy one core guideline in favor of another, especially when one of them is indisputable. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)