Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Criticism of criticism

The criticism is unfounded, it comes from an obscure source that most Southern Adventist University Students have never even heard of. The credibility of the person making the critical comments is in question as is the statement being made.

ApsbaMd2 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks based on regulations

I found this in the history of the article as I was trying to improve it. (Actually, I found an longer version with more attacks than anything else..) I readded it to the article and whittled it down some before going on a hunt for sources (which I assumed existed). I couldn't find any except this blog post which doesn't seem particularly reliable. So this is probably true but not fit for the article at this point so I'm transferring it here. If there are sources found, it could be readded I guess.. BelloWello (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppressive regulations

Southern Adventist University has been accused of implementing numerous arbitrary rules. Sleeveless shirts are not allowed in the new Wellness Center. The facility has a prime view of shirtless men at the pool. The academic staff believes that sleeveless shirts promote "unchristian" values. Pepper and mustard are banned in the cafeteria and may not be brought in. This regulation is traced to some of the writings of Ellen G. White. It has been said that a majority of the faculty do not agree with the rules, however, the university's wealthy benefactors do. Many of the students believe that the current president, Gordon Bietz, is a bureaucratic puppet for the McKee family. Contrary to the school's supposed commitment to spiritual growth, Southern Adventist University has been accused of stifling spiritual maturation. Instead of providing opportunities for students to formulate ideas themselves, ideas are indoctrinated through propaganda in required worships.

Response to Quixar and explanation of recent edits.

This is in response to a message from Quixar on my talk page. From the content of his message, it appears that he is the same person as IP address 216.229.229.94, which there is no problem with, just something I wanted to note for anyone else who may read our exchange.

• First, you removed information noting critical analysis of Southern from the article while editing from Southern's own servers as a geolocate on the IP shows. I believe this to be a conflict of interest, however, that is not the only justification for my revert. The controversies and comments were all reliably sourced and should have better explanation for removal. As you can see above, I removed an uncited attack on Southern from the article because it did not have appropriate sourcing.
• I removed the information you added because it was largely uncited (I believe there may have been one or two sources), information on wikipedia must have reliable sources. Spectrum is considered a reliable source, AToday is considered a reliable source, Adventist Review is a reliable source but would be a self-published source in referring to an Adventist Institution, etc. We have to have independent sources for information added, hence I reverted your, probably true, but original research edits.

I believe that covers the main issues you brought up. Now to respond to your specific comments on my page:

student missionary death and "gun point" items happened off campus. Unless these incidents happened on campus, I don't find it relevant to the entry. That would lead to us reporting alumni deaths, car accidents, suicides, etc. I didn't remove the death of the student on campus due to the fire because I feel its more relevant to the university since it occurred on campus.

• I'm not sure where you got the idea that a incident has to occur on campus in order for it to be noted in an article on the subject. The "gun point" incident is notable because it resulted in the end of southern's home nursing program. As for the student missionary death, I think it is notable because of the wide attention it received from reliable sources, as well as the fact that Southern places a large emphasis on its student missionary program and it is the only known death of a student missionary. Southern widely promotes it's student missionary program and it even places the number of current student missionaries on its homepage!

The "masturbation controversy" section seems sensationalist in its titling at the very least. I'm not sure why one controversy back in the 80s merited singling out.

• As I said in my edit summary, it could very well be called the biggest controversy southern was embroiled in... How many other controversies has southern been involved in that resulted in the resignation of a board member and caused a president to go on a "sabbatical" in the face of being removed? If you know of any more, please add them with sources! Also, in your edit summary you cited WP:NOTNEWS as justification for your removal. I don't see how that policy applies to events from the eighties, it would apply more to not adding information about trivial news mentions...

The ideology section just seems to be focused on one person's opinion. There have been articles claiming Southern has become too liberal. Why does this one merit inclusion in your opinion?

• The Raymond Cottrell comments merits inclusion due to his status as a leading Adventist scholar. He either served as Editor or Assistant Editor for all three major Adventist publications, well, you can go read his article. His comments on an Adventist institution seems very worth including considering its origin from a very prominent figure. If you can find an article claiming Southern has become too liberal, that is reliably sourced and is not WP:FRINGE, please feel free to include it. I have no disagreement to doing so.

I'll be honest; your recent edits give the impression of vandalism. Most of your edits seem to be to add negative commentary. Using Spectrum, a commentary blog, as a source seems to provide a lot of the negative wording. There is nothing included from the Review, ANN, or any other sources that are more news/announcement.

• Let's not resort to character assassination. Also, I refer you to the policy requirement to assume good faith. Feel free to read above for my reasoning for quoting Spectrum, which I might add is more than a "commentary blog," although that is hardly the point.

I would like to resolve this rather than get into an edit duel. I spent a bunch of time going through an old book on Southern and visiting their website to add some of that information. I don't want to see it go to waste.

• I appreciate your good faith attempt to come to an agreement. If you have information sourced to a reliable book, that is awesome! Please add information from the book to the article and source the information to it! Books are excellent sources.

Thank you for updating the number of majors, etc. I guess your book would probably contain information about the name changes so the citation needed templates could be removed soon... I'll be glad to collaborate with you to improve coverage of southern in wikipedia. BelloWello (talk)

Also, I would be interested if you, as someone who is at Southern could find documentation for the information above that I removed regarding rules at Southern? I could only find self-published blogs about it so it is obviously not reliably sourced but perhaps there's something you can find that could source some of that? BelloWello (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing discussion, consensus was not found to add the "progressive" label to Raymond Cottrell, further discussion of other issues can continue in separate threads. BelloWello (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I have reverted User:Fountainviewkid's edit here, since the term "Progressive" is unnecessary to identify him to readers, they can easily click through to his article to see that. If you feel more identification is needed, I would note that he was involved in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, was the Assistant Editor of the Adventist Review, etc., those would be important identifying facts if needed, being progressive? not so much. BelloWello (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the identifier Progressive Adventist is appropriate since it provides context to the source. The vast majority of the SDA church would not consider this college to be "ultra-fundamentalist" which I believe sounds more like trying to score cheap political points. By adding the description it allows the quote to be understood properly. Plenty of students come out of Southern which are not "ultra-fundamentalist", Sam Leonor for example. Fountainviewkid 19:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of the label is a violation of the policy on verifiability, as we do not have a reliable source that call him a "progressive." Your disagreement with his characterization notwithstanding, we need reliable sources for everything added, and there are currently no such sources for calling Dr. Cottrell progressive. Even if there were such sources, I would disagree with its inclusion, but we'll discuss that if you actually find sources. BelloWello (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am basing my tagging off the Progressive Adventist page, where he is mentioned in that category. Fountainviewkid 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is not reliably sourced either, the fact it is in another wikipedia is not justification to include it in another article per WP:CIRCULAR, so again, please either provide reliable sources or remove the WP:LABEL. BelloWello (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no source or reply has been suggested, I ask that an administrator remove the "Progressive" WP:LABEL from Raymond Cottrell, unless Fountainviewkid provides a WP:RS for the label by then, in which case I ask that it be added with in-text attribution. In other words, either the label should be removed or sourced. This is independent of the content dispute that caused the article protection below. BelloWello (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

LABELS Hi all, why do we consider it necessary to label someone as "progressive" or whatever. If they have labelled themselves, that seems more acceptable. Cottrell's comments quote kind of provide their own identifiers it seems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually found a good link which classifies Cottrell under this description. I can agree also with DonaldRichardSands (talk) that the quote may also provide an identifier. I still don't see a problem in including the extra label since this is the only comment in the ideology section. Having a Progressive Adventist attack an institution as ultra-fundamentalist or Historic Adventist is not very useful for understanding the true ideology of the college. Fountainviewkid 3:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Donald, it is an unnecessary label either way. Can we see this WP:reliable source, by the way? I wouldn't call it an attack, simply a very accurate description of the school. Unless Fountainviewkid can provide a policy explanation as to why it should be included, I think it should be removed. BelloWello (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The source is a book which so far I have only been able to access online (http://propheticparallels.com/book_1/chapter_13.html). The fact you consider the school to be "ultra-fundamentalist" and see Cottrell's views as accurate demonstrate a strong bias against the school. I prefer using more neutral NPOV terms. I still don't see a problem in including the extra label since this is the only comment in the ideology section. Having a Progressive Adventist attack an institution as ultra-fundamentalist or Historic Adventist is not very useful for understanding the true ideology of the college. Fountainviewkid 3:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How does that demonstrate a strong bias, pray tell? The fact that you do not consider them accurate seems to "demonstrate a strong bias against" Cottrell. Labels in general are best avoided in wikipedia unless they are attributed. If you don't like the only comment in the ideology section, then please, feel free to find a reliable sourced counter opinion and post it. The source you provided does not appear to be a reliable source and is therefore insufficient to call him a progressive adventist for wikipedia purposes. Furthermore, it is unnecessary, hence, it should be removed. BelloWello (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I only have as strong a bias against Cottrell as you have against Southern Adventist University, which is interesting since you're trying to edit this page to fit a certain ideological perspective. I am not doing the same on Cottrell's page, since I don't feel it is appropriate to push my bias onto a biography of a person who has recently been alive. As for the source being reliable, I would dispute your charge. The fact that it cites many many sources that have been verified, etc. strengthen its reliability. If you want however I can use the book Seeking a Sanctuary, which you won't be able to attack (hopefully).Fountainviewkid 04:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, actually the book you provided is highly unreliable. It's source for Cottrell being progressive is, wait for it, (whispering so we don't tell everyone...) wikipedia!, so I stand behind my statement that such WP:CIRCULAR sources are not reliable. As for Seeking a Sanctuary, I am unfamiliar with the book, however, the wikipedia page doesn't seem to give it any particular reliability for a contested claim. The best we could say is "Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart called Cottrell..," which would then be questionable under WP:WEIGHT, and I think it would fail. BelloWello (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am basing the identification of him being a Progressive Adventist off more than wikipedia. The book categorizes both beliefs and those who hold them. As such it places Cottrell into the category. It uses wikipedia merely as an additional background source. As for Seeking a Sanctuary, it is has been quoted as The most authoritative study of Seventh-day Adventism" by a prominent SDA historian and easily provides a validation. If you Cottrell's rant can be used to describe the ideology of Southern, then Bull & Lockhart should at least be allowed since they are far more academic, professional, and NPOV. Fountainviewkid 04:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of Kenneth Newport, so I cannot judge whether he is a "prominent SDA historian," please point me to where in the other book it categorizes both beliefs and those who hold them. The only thing I found was an item sourced to wikipedia which is circular. The book as a whole seems unreliable, so unless it can point us to a reliable source through its citations, then it is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not require that its sources be NPOV, just that everything be verifiable and from reliable sources. Like I said, Bull & Lockhart can be allowed in a manner that clearly states whose view whatever they say is. Furthermore, it would belong on the Raymond Cottrell article, not in this article. Again, why should we WP:LABEL Cottrell here? You still haven't provided a policy reason for this. BelloWello (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be rough consensus to remove the label, at least until a reliable source is produced which supports the use of the label.  Removed for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ. :) BelloWello (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to any interested: Unfortunately, User:Fountainviewkid has taken their crusade to label Cottrell outside of what they consider the "mainstream" to his main article. The same issues with sourcing remain. BelloWello (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:LABEL was removed because it wasn't really necessary. The issue was not so much whether Cottrell was progressive but rather whether the label was useful. Look again at the other user comments can you can see that this is the issue. It's not about source, it's about the location of the label.Fountainviewkid 02:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The question was that there was no reliable source for it. Now there is that I provided, from Adventist Today. But it is still not sufficient to WP:LABEL him, it is only enough to say "Some of his views have been described as progressive." or some variation of that.

The question was if the label was appropriate. See what DonaldRichardSands (talk) said. It wasn't about the reliability of the source. Fountainviewkid 03:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The source was not reliable and neither was the label appropriate. DOUBLE WHAMMY! BelloWello (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The source may have been reliable, but either way I found more sources detailing him as "progressive"! See [2]. Fountainviewkid 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, buddy, I found that. So in other words you should be saying thank you and leaving it at that. Unlike what appears to be some other editor's motivation, I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. BelloWello (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay well thanks for it. I did find other sources though such as a LaSierra University page which says the same thing (even more clearly). I'm here to improve the encyclopedia and not make false accusations as you seem to enjoy. Furthermore I don't try to include only one side. Fountainviewkid 17:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's seems that some editors are here for an WP:AGENDA, that's fine, we'll work around it for now.. BelloWello (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For inclusion later

From Adventist Today, this little tid bit on rules at Southern:

The church doesn't have an official stand on engagement rings. It used to be that even wedding rings were looked down on in the Adventist Church, falling into the category of adornment. In fact, some churches didn't allow men or women to hold church office if they wore a wedding ring. However, in 1986 that rule was changed, and now the church manual says wedding rings are acceptable. Engagement rings have never been mentioned-the church hasn't felt the need to address the issue yet, says Armando Miranda, General Conference vice president and chairman of the church manual.

Among Adventist colleges, however, policies are inconsistent across the board. The Southern Adventist University handbook, for example, prohibits jewelry on campus in any form, engagement rings included-a girl gets fined if a dean catches her wearing one. But Andrews University calls both engagement rings and wedding bands "modest symbols of marriage," while Pacific Union College just "encourages" students to be "jewelry-free."

"There shouldn't be a blanket statement that you can't wear your engagement ring," Fellows says. "I am glad Andrews has that policy because they let you choose...You're a grown up; that shouldn't be dictated by other people."

But in the end, most guys agree that buying or not buying an engagement ring for their future fiancée should be up to them and their special someone-not a rule imposed by a church, a school or a friend.

When the article is unprotected, this reliably sourced tid bit about life at Southern should be integrated. BelloWello (talk)

Suggested wording

Southern's emphasis on "conservative religious and social practices" spills over into student life. Jewelry is not allowed on Southern's campus in any form, engagement rings included. Students are fined if found to have violated the ban.

Comments

The above section would lead the Student Life area. If anyone has concerns, let's discuss it now. BelloWello (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hatting comment irrelevant to proposed addition.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interesting that many students still love Southern and their experience there. It seems highly unusual to have such strict rules for university age students. But, student life involves more than these eccentric rules. The same is true for Southern's history.

At some point I would like to develop a full balanced history of Southern. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hatting content that does not contribute to development of article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I second DonaldRichardSands (talk). Some users are only posting one side on Southern. [User talk:Fountainviewkid|Fountainviewkid]] 17:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainviewkid (talk • contribs)

Edit protected Please add the content above under "Suggested wording" as the lead to the "Student life" portion of the article. The first citation used is the same as the one used in the lead so it would be nice if they could be consolidated under ref. naming. Thanks! BelloWello (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi BellowWello. These strict rules of Southern certainly are interesting and should be included. But, if we are interested in showing a full and balanced view of student life at Southern, we need to also provided cited examples of other aspects of student life. When I attended there, I lived with friends in the community, not in the dorm. When my fellow students found out that the Greek teacher liked my work, I was invited to join the men's dorm translation committee. Our task was to translate the Testament of Abraham. This committee work was also a part of student life. The Columns journal might provide other citable examples of student life. Many students who attend Southern love doing so. There is something about the place which is very positive, unlike some of the strict rules such as no engagement rings. To give a solid article about Southern, we need to provide a full picture of life there. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Users fail to agree on temporary compromise. Under wiki policy, current wording will have to stay in until an agreement on final wording is complete. BelloWello (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

---

While this issue is discussed further, I would like to seek compromise to make the following change to this line:

"Southern terminated its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010." → "Southern discontinued its home health nursing program after two nursing students were threatened at gun point in November 2010, at that time, school officials stated they were actively working to restart the program."

This is a compromise between my suggestion for improvement, which was to simply swap out the word "discontinued" for "terminated," and user Fountainviewkid's insistance that the word "suspended" be used to substitute the same. This wording makes clear that the school intended for the lapse in the program to be temporary, as Fountainviewkid seems to have intended with his word choice, but makes clear that it was a "put the brakes" on stop in the program when it occurred, as my wording clarified.
This change does not preclude further discussion on the wording, I am simply floating it as a temporary compromise as the final wording is ironed out. BelloWello (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest using the terminology of the source itself which says "suspended" both in the title and the text. No where is the term discontinued or implied. I would argue this is a compromise between noting that the suspension was "temporary" and BelloWello's suggestion that "discontinued" should be used. Especially as we have other users stating that the program has no longer even been "suspended" and is back up, something the source also hints at.Fountainviewkid 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not have sources for it being back up. If you cannot agree to the compromise, I guess the article will have to stay as is until there is consensus for a change, or do you agree that the compromise version is better than the current version and will you allow it to be used until a final compromise is reached? It was discontinued at one point, that needs to be made clear. It also must be made clear that the school considered it temporary and was working to restart it. But let me repeat, this thread is not for discussion on a final wording for the section, start a new thread for that. This is simply a proposed temporary solution until a final one is ironed out. The question is whether we will, (1) use the compromise above while discussing a final version, or (2) leave the wording as is until a final version is agreed upon. Which will it be? BelloWello (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise! Using the source wording, which truthfully should be no compromise but hey not everyone likes Wiki's standards on using sources. Your "compromise" version is NO compromise. It's just as problematic and false as the current terminology. The question is whether we will we will use the source wording or not. You don't want to use the source wording, I (and others) think we should. I say as a compromise use the source wording until we get solid evidence that is is no longer "suspended".Fountainviewkid 20:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your compromise is simply doing what you've wanted the whole time. That is not a compromise, and your position is not more supported by any relevant policies than mine is. There is no reason to continue this discussion. You have failed to accept a reasonable compromise and that's that, the current wording will have to stay put until we come to an agreement on new wording. If you ever want to agree to it, feel free to reopen this thread. I would have thought you would accept this as a temporary agreement as we continue discussions since it is closer than the current wording to your preferred version. Oh well. If you want to seek a change to the current wording, please start a new thread for that. BelloWello (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numbers

May I ask for an explanation why this belongs in the lead? I don't think it should be there per WP:LEAD. BelloWello (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Facebook

Regarding this edit, facebook pages may not be included as an external link per WP:FACEBOOK. Please kindly remove it or provide an explanation? BelloWello (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Radio station

Regarding this edit, why does WSMC-FM deserve its own lvl 2 header section in the article on Southern when it already has its own article? BelloWello (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it is due weight. The radio station is notable. This is a Start class article. As it expands, it will be obvious that the article is best served by in depth treatment of the station.Lionel (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Due weight is about opinions/viewpoints. This isn't about a viewpoint or an opinion but about whether an entity that has its own article deserves this treatment. BelloWello (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Due weight also applies to "aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." My position is that a school of a university is significant to the university. Lionel (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So your position is that every department is inherently notable because they have a page on the school's website? That sounds like a way to get a very bloated article. BelloWello (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Most universities are composed of a number of "schools" which cater to general areas of study. My alma mater, a large research univ, had less than 10. I do not think a sentence or 2 about departments would lead to bloat. If it does it could be trimmed. Lionel (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 21 at southern, do each deserve a mention in the lead and a two paragraph section devoted to them? List here. BelloWello (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Those appear to be majors. I'm referring to schools e.g. College of Letters and Arts, School of Engineering, School of Fine Arts, etc. These schools in a typical univ. administer the majors under their purview. And no, in general an article should not discuss individual majors offered by a univ. Lionel (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The 21 categories at the top seem to be departments, the majors are not what I am referring to. BelloWello (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Major schools, determined by consensus, should have a sentence or 2 in the academics section of the article. And probably not a mention in the lede. Lionel (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The nursing school currently had quite a bit more than the sentence or two suggested, and we don't need to summarize the catalogue here. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Working to upgrade articles

Lets remember the purpose is to make better and upgrade the articles in Wikipedia, to give others a balanced picture of what is being written about. Lets see if we can improve this article with good content and facts, not inflammatory and offensive words or attacks. Thanks..Simbagraphix (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Care to reply to any of my messages that you have studiously ignored? BelloWello (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets try to make a article which shows a balanced view of the campus and its students and staff, that we can all contribute and work to improve, and keep the offensive words to a minimum please. I have to shut down but will discuss the page with you tommorow if thats ok, Thanks...Simbagraphix (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Those messages were there while you made the changes you did. Please discuss FIRST before making changes next time. Yes, if tomorrow, you could explain all your edits that would be very good. BelloWello (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, before you make any edits, it would probably be a good idea to read the policy on reliable sources. Your edits seem easy on those. BelloWello (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said the article should reflect a balanced view of the campus and its students and faculty/staff, not some isolated incident with dubious importance or offensive language. You dont do any part of them justice of the true nature of the college, or its people when that is done. So lets try and upgrade and give true balanced picture of the institution, put that into the article71.54.21.80 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, please provide a reason as to why the nursing program is notable. I don't see any sources independent of the subject reporting on it. Also, why do the number of majors, etc. belong in the WP:LEAD? Finally, "southern charm" should not be included since that is undue promotional material and is only sourced to the school website. It would be notable if Spectrum or Adventist Today or some other publication independent of the subject mentions it. BelloWello (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Southern Charm. As I briefly looked for an independent salute to SAU's Southern Charm, I have noted that almost everyone in the South claim Southern Charm for their area or institution. Thus, Southern Charm can be expected at Southern. Perhaps the claim is self-serving, but it is also true simply because SAU is in the South. Nothing to urge re: text of article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming southern charm is promotional in nature, we're not here to promote southern but to provide a neutral encyclopedic article with secondary sources. BelloWello (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Providing a balance and full view

Hi BelloWello,

My comments in the section above did not seem to be accepted in that section, so I am adding them here. At some point I would like to develop a full balanced history of Southern. The strict rules of Southern certainly are interesting and should be included. But, if we are interested in showing a full and balanced view of student life at Southern, we need to also provide cited examples of other aspects of student life. When I attended there, I lived with friends in the community, not in the dorm. When my fellow students found out that the Greek teacher liked my work, I was invited to join the men's dorm translation committee. Our task was to translate the Testament of Abraham. This committee work was also a part of student life. The 'Columns' journal might provide other citable examples of student life. Many students who attend Southern love doing so. There is something about the place which is very positive, unlike some of the strict rules such as no engagement rings. To give a solid article about Southern, we need to provide a full picture of life there.

In the Spring 2011 edition of 'Columns' there are featured aspects of Student life: Enrollment at Southern is 3000+. One article related to Student Life features what are called Life Groups, twenty of these are meeting on campus. citation: Baerg, Angela. Small Groups on a Growing Campus. Columns, Spring 2001, p. 6. Southern's recent involvement with the Jeopardy program certainly must have influenced student life and conversations. See Columns Spring 2011 p. 16. There are other aspect of student life which could add to a full picture of Southern. Adventists, generally, are not good at reporting controversy among themselves. MacDonalds isn't, either. lol. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Donald,

I agree that some other aspects of life should be included. If someone has a source for their intramural sports program, that could certainly use a source. I've scoured the internet looking for sources about life at southern and have posted what I've found. I don't know whether a school newspaper will provide due weight to anything it covers. We'll see. Regardless, because of the controversy on this article, I really don't plan to make many more changes.. I'm planning to just continue the discussions on the talk page and pop in once in a while with an edit on the article. I think any change to the article needs to get full consensus here before going in (not to say that I think reliably sourced tid bits about student life will be controversial). My project right now is to finish off that article on Larry Geraty we've been working on, and then possibly one on Albion Field Station, which seems super interesting. BelloWello (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Commenting out

I commented out the number of staff the school has from the info box because it was unsourced and seems inaccurate. Please feel free to re-add if you have a source. BelloWello (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just added citations for student enrollment, faculty and staff numbers. The SDA Statistics citation is ideal, IMO. The Columns citation is more up to date and claims an over 3000 number. The SDA statistics for 2009 list student enrollment at 2891. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That works for me! We just need reliable sources for everything. BelloWello (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New information

I just added to the article that Southern is considered the most conservative Adventist school. This may seem readily apparent, but I think it is important to spell it out, especially considering we have a straight statement from an official website of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists casually stating this. BelloWello (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Southern certainly is conservative. I wonder how conservative it is compared to other Adventist schools around the globe. I have noticed that Adventists from the Philippines, South America, and the Caribbean seem to be quite conservative. How do Adventist schools in those countries compare to Southern? The 'engagement ring rule' provides further evidence of Southern's conservative nature. Yet, there are other facts which make one wonder how conservative is it really. How does it compare to the uniquely established school known as Weimar? I am okay with your wording. Just musing further. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt it's as conservative as Hartland College for example... but the NAD source did say it was "our most conservative" school, so I mean, maybe it would be better clarified later on that it is the "most conservative school run by the Adventist church in North America?" Obviously, this would be undue in the lead but would probably be good in the ideology section? Thoughts? BelloWello (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am okay the way it is. I have considered wording such as, "one of the most conservative", or "intentionally conservative". I suspect that Southern knows its reputation and is pleased with the niche that it has found. I looked over the Adventist Forum citation. A biology professor has led the way in starting the chapter. If this AAF chapter is continuing to run with Administrative allowance, Southern's claim to the ultra-conservative label is in jeapordy. lol DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yeah, they definitely play their rep, I think. I doubt that the AAF chapter is officially sanctioned or sponsored. It's probably a student group in the strictest meaning of the word. BelloWello (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems difficult for a university that wants to remain ultra-conservative. The very nature of a university is that of freedom and inquiry. Some matters of inquiry can be upsetting to a conservative Adventist school. Adventist history, like all histories, morphs with the perspective of the historian. Facts once established are relentless. They demand rethinking, reordering of one's reasons for believing and behaving. Conservatives are not very good at this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Archeology

Are there any secondary sources for this? I don't have a problem with its inclusion, but I think we should have people other than Southern or Southern Union speaking about it if we include it (policy on self sources...). BelloWello (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I will work on the sources for this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a new source for the Archaeological section. The William G. Dever/Hasel connection is an important one in Archaeology and Adventism. The pottery collection alone brings Southern into the sphere of archaeological education. To become a great school, re: archaeology, Southern needs to develop governing committees, mentoring, and new leaders to take the program out of the hands of one man, such as Hasel, or in the case of University of Arizona, Dever. Andrews University seems to have accomplished the generation after generation task; Going from Horn, to Geraty, to those there now. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

True, I condensed the section down but think it was very well done. Thank you! Now if we could find some more secondary sources... `BelloWello (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

SAU as a source

Citing SAU as a source is perfectly acceptable per WP:SELFPUB "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" noting the 5 caveats. Bello's comment "I think we should have people other than Southern or Southern Union speaking about it if we include it (policy on self sources)" can safely be disregarded. Lionel (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Except the clear exception saying that "the material is not unduly self-serving;" which the statement my comment was based on fell under. Talking about "southern charm" is self-promotive. BelloWello (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Your comment was directed toward sourcing for Institute for Archeology. Lionel (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of improvements to the article. Do you have a specific suggestion on improving the article or is this just payback for me disagreeing with you on other pages? BelloWello (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we were discussing using SAU as a source until you made it personal. Lionel (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually came to say my comment can be disregarded. If my comment was personal, so was yours, and we both know which one came first. BelloWello (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment, and rightfully so, since it improperly cited policy. I wasn't referring to you personally. However, your comment directly attacks my motivations and does not AGF. Lionel (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. However, I have taken notice that you are now following me around to various threads I am involved in. I realize stalking is allowed on wikipedia but it is also quite obnoxious. Are you saying that anything that SAU says about itself is inherently due-weight and deserves to be in the article? BelloWello (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Following you around? Please don't flatter yourself. You placed the WPConservatism banner here. As soon as you did that the edit war here blew up the project's alert monitoring tool. If there is consensus to add everything that SAU says about itself, then so be it. Lionel (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. Fortunately, I know wikipedia policy and won't be making pointy additions, but think about all the ridiculously detailed additions that could be made! We need a line drawn, and that line is best drawn at "received coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources," imo. Do you have a better way to determine whether something belongs in the article? Perhaps we should include everything from these blogs on the site as well? Or where do we draw the line?BelloWello (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WPConservatism

From WP:PROJGUIDE, "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." I'm here from WPConservatism and I say this is within our scope. Removing the banner is disruptive. Lionel (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lionelt, could you explain what you mean further. What is the 'banner' you are referring to? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody owns anything on wikipedia, I have joined your project. Hence, that argument does not apply. Under the clear guidelines of what constitutes our scope on our project page, I am removing the banner. It is not disruptive. BelloWello (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still need some help understanding what you two are discussing. What is the banner? Why is it important whether it is there or removed. What makes it disruptive? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. The article is still within scope and you cannot "force them [me] to remove it." Lionel (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing anyone. But it is not within scope because the scope only includes political conservatives. Hence, this article which has nothing to do with political conservatives and hence does not fall under the clear scope listed. If you don't like the scope, make a discussion at the project to change it. (Donald, we're discussing the project banner at the top) BelloWello (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope is not restricted to political conservatives. Lionel (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to go back to your about us and read it. BelloWello (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing the banner is interpreted as "forcing them to remove." You are clearly in violation of WP:PROJGUIDE. We can take this to Will Beback... but do you really want to do that? (I already know what he'll say.) Lionel (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's interpreting? I'm a part of the project and I object to the absolute disregard for the stated scope. Furthermore, as an adventist, I object to having this schools article placed in the same project category as hate groups like the Family Research Council. BelloWello (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So you're OK with taking this to Will Beback? Lionel (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I object to your twisting (or completely ignoring your scope) and acting like you own the project to pursue your agenda, whatever it is. BelloWello (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)