Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Edits and explanation (the ones that aren't a result of a previous discussion)

• [1] - moved some information to infobox and removed information from lead that was redundant with infobox.
• [2] - U.S. News and World Report doesn't do rankings in that form anymore. This doesn't get a mention anywhere in the article, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article. I have removed it, I am not adverse to it being included under academics.
• [3] - I tagged a this source as a primary source. Although it may not appear to be one, this page makes clear that the schools can easily update their own listings.
• [4] - this is mostly an edit for clarity, however, I removed a "Dr." title since wikipedia doesn't use titles. (I know there's a guideline/styleguide/policy on this somewhere, I can't remember where, but one of the old timers should be able to confirm..)

FYI . . . The guideline is under WP:CREDENTIAL. No comment on the old-timer remark, though. ;) Alanraywiki (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• [5] - I removed Michael G. Hasel from the notable faculty because he is linked already in the Institute for Archaeology. Per WP:LINK, articles should only be linked once.
• [6] - I don't see how a guy who played monopoly on tv is notable, if someone has a rationale, I will not object to that being presented, the person being readded while it is discussed.

I hope that explains my edits. Let's continue to collaborate and seek consensus regarding changes to the article (note that none of my edits made any actual changes, rather they reverted to previous versions). Best! BelloWello (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

I tagged a statement cited only to a self-published primary (unreliable) source as dubious. I find it hard to believe that there are only three Christian "film production units" in the U.S., whatever that means. If it means Christian colleges that teach film, I found at least three in a quick Google Search: Liberty University [7], Regent University [8] [9] and Pacific Union College [10]. That's just a quick search, I am sure there are more. So unless I am misinterpreting "film production unit," that statement is incorrect and goes to show that self-published promotion from colleges is not reliable. BelloWello (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Source says that was the case in 2004. Corrected article. Do you wish to cite a policy that says self-pub sources may not speak about themselves? Lionel (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is "self-published sources may be used unless Lionelt doesn't like what it says." For a more through explanation, see Hrafn's comments above. BelloWello (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox redundancy

Acreage was moved to the infobox with this edit sum "info redundant with infobox." However HELP:Infobox states "the information should still be present in the main text, because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox." Lionel (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask that you reply in the thread I created explaining my edits? Thanks! BelloWello (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Early 1980s edit

This edit [11] seems to be the object of a slow edit war between Bello and editors Simba & Fountain. I think this change should be discussed. I'm reverting to the Simba/Fountain version since (1) the consensus on this talk page favors a conservative rendering of sources (see masturbation discussion), and (2) there is no discussion why Bello's change is better. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is a revert to the previous version before the version you just reverted to. Hence, your assertion that it is a "change" is incorrect, the edit you just made it to the "changed" new version. The version I reverted to was worked on by both me and DonaldRichardSands. I agree, it should be discussed before such a change is made, hence, I will probably revert it back to the previous wording (the one I worked on with Donald) pending further discussion from Fountain/Simba as to why their change is beneficial. BelloWello (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that your "consensus" is actually irrelevant to the issue. The "consensus" was in terms of the wording of the header, I have bowed to that consensus since it was clear that even the level-headed DonaldRichardSands agreed with the more hot-headed WP:AGENDA driven editors. That consensus on the title does not give them permission to remove valid information from the content which is what was done immediately after. BelloWello (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the edit this is the place for it. If you would rather edit war (and I wish you wouldn't) there is nothing I can do to stop you. Lionel (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am all for discussion. I would love to hear a rationale for why the change that leaves out pertinent information that is reliably sourced is necessary. Until such a rationale is given, I think the article should stay in its previous version. BelloWello (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your version is more sensational than Simba/Fountain's. I don't see where Donald supports your edit, and he wrote "sensationalist wording and conservative understatement, I prefer the conservative understatement." Hmmm... you're not discussing your edit... Why? Lionel (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That was in reference to the title. I would welcome an explanation from Fountain or Simba as to why a change is necessary. Until then, I will busy myself getting more DYKs and upgrading more articles to DYK and do my best to keep the article on the previous wording that was unilaterally changed without consensus. Pity, I was going to work on this article but certain editors are pushing their agenda and making it near impossible to work on. BelloWello (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since they're not here at the moment, and you are, why not elaborate on why your edit is preferable. I don't think we need to wait around for them, do we? I'm listening...

I am not the one advocating a change, hence, the onus is not on me to explain. Until an explanation is given as to why a change is necessary, I am quite pleased with the wording that was previously used and insist on its use until a rationale is provided for, and consensus is reached for a change. I am quite satisfied focusing my efforts on other articles which are being improved while certain WP:AGENDA editors continue their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here. My position is unchanged. Let's here the rationale for any controversial change before making it. BelloWello (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the chronology of what I'll call the "found itself drawn" and the "embroiled in a controversy" versions:

4/30	19:57	simba changes "embroiled" version to "found itself drawn"
5/1	09:52	Bello edits "found itself drawn"
5/4	18:00	Bello changes "found itself drawn" version to "embroiled"
5/5	03:58	Simba changes "embroiled" version back to "found itself drawn." From now on Simba, Fountain, Lionelt immediately revert to "found itself drawn"

From 4/30 to 5/4, a period of 4 days, the article reflected the "found itself drawn" version. Bello, you yourself edited this section and did not reinsert the "embroiled" content. 2 other editors edited the article. For 4 days 5 editors including yourself were fine with the section. A new consensus was arrived at on 4/30.

Would you like to discuss your changes to the section? Lionel (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to where this "consensus" was reached on 4/30. I don't recall any such discussion. My position remains unchanged. BelloWello (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alumni section

Donald, the spacing between entries doesn't look right, and the pics are too small. We also have a free pic of Ponder. What do you say to a gallery? Lionel (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC) How's this?

• 
  Cherie Priest
• Dwight K. Nelson
  Dwight K. Nelson
• 
  Speers Ponder

• 
  Cherie Priest
• Dwight K. Nelson
  Dwight K. Nelson
• 
  Speers Ponder

Take your pick (pun intended)Lionel (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I included the first one, feel free to switch them out if you want. I have no attachment to either. BelloWello (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the gallery approach. I don't like the larger size. People can click on the pictures to see a larger one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wedgwood Trio

I would note that the Adventist Today article, apart from being inappropriately sectarian for establishing the prominence of this group, makes no mention of them being "nationally famous", nor makes mention of Southern Missionary College/SMC (or even Atlantic Union College in relation to this group, for that matter). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed earlier the citation which mentioned the "nationally famous" phrase but left the Adventist Today citation without checking it. I think once you understand the nature of Adventist Today you may not consider it inappropriately sectarian. Adventist Today is actually a gentle counter-culture (Adventist culture) paper. Adventist periodicals very seldom publish controversial news. Adventist Today and Spectrum provide behind the scenes stories. Both journals are not owned or published by the church even though the name Adventist Today sounds like it is. I looked over the Adventist Today piece and found some things about Wedgwood that I did not know before, i.e. that they had been banned and consequently went out of business. I suppose that in itself indicates that they were not nationally famous outside the Adventist church. They certainly made their impact within the church. I recall as a youth hearing about them and the stir they were causing. I will comment out the nationally famous section and invite a proper citation for that fact. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there could be an argument made that the group has a closer relationship to Newbold College (where the group was formed) than to SAU. Regardless, they would probably be more meaningfully discussed in an article that traced Adeventism's (apparently rocky) relationship with popular music than in the context of the University where they happened to spend some time. Also, regardless of where it goes, a source substantiating the material is needed. I'm not surprised that they had little impact outside Adventism, from the descriptions they would seem very stolid and conservative by the wider pop music community of the (extremely experimental, often to the point of self-destruction) time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Land citation clearly links them to Southern. There are some periodicals of the late 60's and early 70's that say they were from Southern. I just finished listening to a recent recording they have done from Australia on Youtube. They say that they present folk music now, not folk rock like they once did. Their music now is by no means controversial even within the Adventist church. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Many periodicals of the time would have mentioned Elvis Presley's time in the army -- but I would not consider that a good reason for a section on him in United States Army. The material to date offers no indication that either of the SAU or the Trio had a profound (or any) influence on the other. Unless sources can be found (for example) stating that the Trio contributed to an identifiable 'SAU sound', or that the University took specific action against them that yielded historically-significant protests, their relationship would appear incidental, and not worthy of mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The ensemble, which provided Southern style folk and bluegrass music, had started in 1964 at Newbold College in England when two SMC students, who were there for a year, joined with a third student from Atlantic Union College. All three, Jerry Hoyle, Don Vollmer, and Bob Summerour, returned to [are at] SMC in 1965 and by the time they graduated from the college, had become well-known within the North American Adventist community.

— Pacific Union Recorder

I have stricken the material in the re-cited in the disputed sentences that are not supported by the source. Not much left. Also note that the source does little to establish noteworthiness (unless you think cooking school classes and fieldtrip are also noteworthy?), and gives only a bare mention to the SMC connection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with your concern for that particular source. I think I have strengthened the kind of citations. Further, I don't believe that noteworthiness within Adventism is in question, is it? The Adventist Church has many articles on wikipedia of entities or persons of little note outside the denomination. I think there are over 500 articles on Adventist topics. I believe that the citations provided in the Wedgwood section clearly establish that they have an SMC connection as graduates and a noteworthy Adventist connection as influences of change within the denomination. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think Wedgwood is relevant. For a while there I thought Wedgwood was a goner... Good job of sourcing, Donald. Love the tie-in to the Beatles. Lionel (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The connection between their music and SAU is sufficiently incidental that they'd make more sense as an Alumni mention than as a section on their own. I would further note that their "noteworthiness within Adventism" is still not supported by the citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider the citations as a whole. Bull and Lockhart certainly speak of them as significant. Land as well. And Johnsson. How many sources must there be before something is noteworty? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is two aspects to this question: (i) When should the article state that they were/are "well-known within the North American Adventist community" -- when we have a source explicitly stating this. (ii) When are they noteworthy in the context of SMC/SAU? When sources do more than simply mention the SMC relationship in passing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

B.C. or B.C.E.

B.C. or B.C.E.

Biblical Christianity has nothing to say about concerns over how dates are rendered. It is a minor matter, but when you give it further thought, to insist on B.C. rather than B.C.E. is to take part in the forcing of Christian perspective on the world whether they want it or not. For Christians to use B.C.E. is not a denial of Christ. Rather, it is a denial of worldly dominance. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to BC-AD so that the wikilinks work: world domination wasn't on my mind. But, since you bring it up, the source also uses BC-AD. I think we should use BC-AD. Lionel (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Just wanted to explore the world domination theme.

Arbitration Committee

Has anyone reading this had experience with Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee ?

The discussion re: The Wedgwood Trio is at an impasse, IMO. There has been significant work put into the paragraph on the group both in finding reliable sources and making good faith adjustments based on critical comments. I am personally surprised at the negative interest some seem to have about anything relating the the Southern article. Maybe I am being overly sensitive, but some editors do very little to build an effective article. In the overall picture of life, why such intense interest in controlling the Southern article. Are there some unstated conflicts of interest? Whatever the case, it seems like we will need some form of arbitration to move forward. I have put a lot of work into finding reliable sources for the Wedgwood paragraph, but do not consider the trio to be the subject of a separate article at this point. Maybe someone would like to develop a Wedgwood article without tampering with what we have developed on the Southern article. Once that Wedgwood article is up and running, maybe we can talk further. Meanwhile, the Wedgwood paragraph should not be taken out of Southern's article without an Arbitration decision, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support in sending this to arbitration. I agree with Donald. Though I have not worked with Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee before I think it might be a good idea. I already have a few sources which could be added to the article in order to make good faith adjustments. I agree that perhaps at some point Wedgwood could separate but for now keeping it with Southern based on the history of the group would be a good idea.Fountainviewkid 21:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking further on this. Eventually, a separate article on Wedgwood might work. There is one source which is kind of illusive but strong in telling the Wedgwood story. That source is:

Marilyn Thomsen (1996). Wedgwood: their music, their journey. Pacific Press Pub. Association, 1996. 176 pages.

The International Adventist Music AssociationDonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The International Adventist Music Association Online as a source for The Wedgwood Trio

At first the website http://www.iamaonline.com/ did not seem very reliable. IAMA is the International Adventist Music Association. But, after investigating the site and its careful use of sources, I have developed considerable respect for what they have set forth there. They provide an amazing musical resource including information about the Wedgwood Trio. They introduced me to Marilyn Thomsen's work. Eventually the material provided there could be helpful in developing a separate Wikipedia article on the Wedgwood Trio. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Until such an article exists, I remain opposed to any reduction of the Wedgwood paragraph on this SAU article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What is owned by Southern?

This statement has recently been removed and then put back:

"It operates a radio station, WSMC-FM, a health food store and a wellness center."

The removal was done by Tatababy with the reasons given:

Revision as of 17:51, 7 May 2011 (edit)Tatababy (talk | contribs)(the fact te same people that owns the school owns something doesn't mean the school owns it.)

My Quetion: Isn't WSMC-FM owned by Southern? What about the health food store and the wellness center? Is Tatababy correct? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the website the station is operated by and licensed to SAU. It doen't say owned. My ideology is that it is impossible for any private entity to own the airwaves, but since this refers directly to the equipment, license, etc. I think it is fair to say owned however. As for the health food store and wellness center, the wellness center is definitely owned by Southern, its a facility on the campus. I don't think it deserves particular mention in the lead, however. It's just another building on campus like any other, do we also say "they have a maintenance facility?" I would take that out. The health food store is owned by SAU per its website. So Tatababy is incorrect on all three counts. BelloWello (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter? This stuff has nothing to do with the education there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatababy (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

New User

Is this new editor a sockpuppet? Someone needs to check. Fountainviewkid 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Same concern. Created WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the repeated edit warring on this article I have re-protected. Please seek consensus on the talk page rather than simply reverting each other. I or another admin can remove the protection as soon as editors agree to work together.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We may be dealing with a sock. Hopefully we will get this cleared up. Thank-you for protecting the page in the short term. Fountainviewkid 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PREFER, the section should be reverted to the previous version which did not contain the contentious label. bW 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should delete the controversial quotation as well? That has never really been accepted by the editing community. Fountainviewkid 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That has been in the article for weeks. The current edit war kicked off about three days ago with Lionelt's addition. That section should be reverted to as it was then. bW 23:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to forget that this debate has been going on for "weeks" now. That quote has been one of the key points of contention. The addition was not just 3 days ago. The "progressive" label has been in and out of the article for "weeks" now also. If the section is to be reverted perhaps the quote should be taken out as well. Fountainviewkid 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It remained in the article while you edit warred over the inclusion of the masturbation among other things, you removed it at the beginning but its remained there since until Lionelt brought it up again. That was the new steady version at that point. bW 00:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

This is a controversial edit and therefore is in violation of the rules regarding it's request. Fountainviewkid 4:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the request above where I ask that the section in conflict be moved back to the last stable version (about three days ago), I would like to make the following uncontroversial edit request:

Jewelry is not allowed on Southern's campus in any form, engagement rings included. Students are fined if found to have violated the ban.

to

Jewelry is not allowed on Southern's campus in any form, engagement rings included. Students are fined if found to have violated the ban.

in order to provide an archive link for the currently broken citation.

Also, please remove

, who took a number of progressive positions,[42]

from the ideology section as it is not well sourced and a WP:LABEL. Thanks. bW 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove the quotation "Who took a number of progressive positions" as it is documented and reliable at this source [12]. This is a quote which has the support of several editors with the only current opposition being the one proposing it's removal. Fountainviewkid 3:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wedgwood as Notable within Adventist Church

Johnsson (see citation in References of article) wrote:

In the summer of 1965 three fresh-faced American young men came home from studies at Newbold College, England—and changed Adventist music forever.

Gary Land wrote:

The Wedgwood Trio, a folk trio from SMC, achieved widespread popularity in the denomination and thereby introduced contemporary sounds into popular Adventist music.

Bull and Lockhart wrote:

they transformed the sound of Adventist music.

Regarding just listing them as notable alumni: That is not enough, in my opinion. Their impact on the Adventist music scene is a story that should be told. It is interesting that "conservative" Southern Missionary College produced this avant-garde group. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that it didn't 'produce' them -- Newbold College did (as the sources clearly document). SMC just happens to be where the Trio ended up for a while after returning to the US. And I've seen nothing to date to indicate that they were in the least bit "avant-garde" -- their notoriety appears to be for having the temerity to attempt to introduce already-existing (and relatively tame) contemporary musical influences to a reactionary Adventist community that was highly resistant to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that, like any musical group, they developed all along their experience. They graduated from Southern. In that sense they were a product of Southern. Sure they began in Newbold, but they lived, and breathed, wrote music, performed, and shook Adventism's status quo at Southern and as graduates of Southern. It is surprising that their relatively tame music had such an impact on Adventism. The reaction of the church by banning their work (see Johnsson) is further evidence of their notability within the church. The Adventist world church leadership do not take such action against non-notable groups. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"In that sense" they are also "a product of" the bus that they took to school each day and the cereal they ate for breakfast. The sources make it clear that they were a well-established group before they returned to the US, and make no explicit mention of any particular influence SMC had on them -- making any such influence pure speculation. The banning issue gives them relevance to the church as a whole (and would make them very relevant to any article on Adventism and music), but does not make them any more relevant to the university (which does not appear to have played any particular role in banning them). You have not established any relationship between them and SMC beyond "they graduated from Southern" -- a relationship that only merits a mention in the Alumni list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that we do not agree on this. If this remains a point of conflict we may need to ask for help in resolving it.

I do want to thank you for your persistence. It has helped me clarify my thinking and to find sources which clearly support the text. Differences can be quite helpful. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you explain why the Wedgwood Trio is more relevant to SAU than Maggie Brown, Clifford Goldstein, Dwight Nelson, Thomas Mostert, Speers Ponder, Cherie Priest, Mark S. A. Smith or Mathew Staver? All of whom likewise "graduated from Southern. In that sense they were a product of Southern." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a competition. The paragraph establishes sound reasons for the connection between Southern and Wedgwood. The trio is not profiled anywhere else on Wikipedia and they are notable enough to be connect with Southern as the paragraph has done.

(i) I did not state that it was a competition. It is however an issue of editorial consistency. (ii) Given none of the sources do more than give a bare mention of the SMC connection, no "sound reason" has not been established. (iii) That is not a valid reason why the place they should be profiled is here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Probably totally irrelevant, is there enough on this group that they can have their own article? (We would need sources outside of Adventism...) If not, how about moving it to the Newbold College page? bW 16:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hi BW, it certainly would be fitting for Newbold to mention the Wedgwood. But that does not warrant its removal from this Southern article. Without guidance from a few other notable administrators here, we remain at an impasse. I don't understand why there is such resistance to the Wedgwood paragraph. In my opinion, we need some help from a few veteran Wikipedia editors. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Is there relationship with SAU sufficiently more intimate than any of the alumni listed above that they warrant their own section, rather than a mention in the alumni list? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There probably is. For context reasons I'd probably prefer to see it dealt with in an article dealing with Adventism's relationship with popular music than in isolation (otherwise the banning of what seems to have been, for the period, a fairly unexceptional and unadventurous folk music group, would seem confusing to the uninitiated reader). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way the last sentence for the current Wedgewood blurb "In the early 70's their career was brought to a halt when their records were banned from the church's retail book outlets" is not supported by the source. The source states that the band disbanded because concert invitations dried up after the group was banned from Pacific Union College's campus in 1970. The group made recordings for Bridge records (subsidiary of Chapel) up until 1973 (see "Country Church" album). Given the symbiotic relationship bewtween Chapel and the Adventist Book Center, I can't see how these discs were banned there. 78.26 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ranked eight consecutive years

As I recall this content has been in the article for some time. Recently Bello found a more current source and boldly removed it, most recently, with the edit sum "rmv irrelevancy that was added without discussion":

and has been ranked one of the “Best Baccalaureate Colleges” for eight consecutive years as of 2010.[13][14]

It's bizarre that he refers to this as "irrelevancy" since it is obviously relevant. It's strange that he is demanding discussion since it was already in the article, and he boldly removed it. The way BRD works is that an editor is bold (Bello removing the content), he gets reverted (Simba and myself have reverted Bello) and then he discusses why he thinks the content should be removed. Bello, this content is sourced, and I can't imagine your position is that it's irrelevant, so under which policy are you claiming this content should be removed? Lionel (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that content was recently added and I am reverting the irrelevent addition. I would note that "Best Baccalaureate Colleges" was simply a category of colleges for U.S. News and World Report, colleges are placed in one of these categories. The worst baccalaureate college in the country was listed in that category until they were renamed in this years rankings. So, again, writing that it was listed as a "Best Baccalaureate College" according to U.S. News and World Report is simply misleading, it was listed as a Baccalaureate College, now a Regional College (same thing). So again, it is simply redundant of what is already written, that it is categorized by the USN&WR (which gets its classifications from Carnegie) as a Southern Regional College, the new name of what was known as the Best Southern Baccalaureate College category. So why exactly should we note that it was listed in the same category for the past nine years? We would note if it's category had changed, but that is not the case. However, all that aside, lets hear the argument for inclusion since the onus on those being bold and making the addition to argue their side! bW 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep making the claim that "the onus on those being bold and making the addition to argue their side." This in fact is contrary to policy. From WP:BRD: "... I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Lionel (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Hence, after I removed the addition, the burden is on those who added it, when it was restored, the onus would again be on those who restored it. bW 22:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected to source. Now reads "and has listed it as a Top Tier college for eight consecutive years as of 2010" Lionel (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is more acceptable. How about this wording: "The U.S. News & World Report categorizes it as a Southern Regional College and has consistently listed it as one of its top tier schools in that category." It's shorter, I don't think it misrepresents the source since not only was it eight consecutive years, it is still listed as a top tier, even if not very high. I also think it sounds better with my proposed wording. bW 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like my wording, at the very least, please remove the superflous comma, has→had and use lower case for "top tier," until we can discuss the wording further. bW 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If Simba approves it's OK with me. Lionel (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the change. bW 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You left out the operative phrase of WP:ONUS: "remove any material lacking a reliable source." The content in question was sourced. You are citing WP:ONUS where it has no application. I suggest you be more careful in the future when you start talking about "the onus..." Lionel (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cottrell

Cottrell makes a biased statement about SAU in the Ideology section. Cottrell is known to have taken a number of progressive positions later in his career. (Note that he died shortly after making the biased statement.) It's obvious that SAU is conservative. It's obvious Cottrell took progressive positions. It Cottrell is characterizing SAU as untra-conservative, we should not censor the fact that Cottrell took progressive positions. There is no reason why this relevant and sourced content should not be added to the article:

who took a number of progressive positions[15]

Lionel (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship but relevance and weight. It has already been discussed extensively, the reader can easily click through and read more about Cottrell if they'd like. Perhaps you would also like to add that he was one of the most influential individuals in putting together the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and was the editor of the Church's flagship publication, the Adventist Review since that can be reliably sourced? Its obvious that a commenters qualifications should be mentioned. There is no reason why such relevant and sourced content should be censored......... except for due weight. Same goes for your addition that was previously opposed. Please note that "Progressive" and "Conservatives" within Adventist circles are quite a bit different and not quite a polarized as in society, the reason this is relevant is because a highly reputable and respected leader in the Adventist Church put a comment like that into writing, that just usually doesn't happen in the church. But, unless you have a reliable source that connects his positions that some have described after the fact as "progressive" with his surprising statement on Southern, it is no more relevant that 100 other comments on his positions/qualifications. BelloWello (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Who defines what "progressive" means. Here in Canada we used to have "Progressive Conservatives". They were conservatives who thought of themselves as centrist. Hmmm. I doubt that Cottrell even heard the term "progressive" used as an adjective in Adventism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

LaSierra & Adventist Today both have defined Cottrell as "progressive". I would argue these are reliable and valid secondary sources which can be used to apply the label. I would also argue your comment about progressive conservatives in Canada is irrelevant due to there being a Progressive Adventist page which defines the term rather clearly and fits Cottrell almost to the tee. He may not have considered himself "progressive" but his friends did and his beliefs and actions fit easily the definition provided here on Wikipedia. Fountainviewkid 12:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You've never showed us the La Sierra link, Fountainviewkids, I'm not going to comment on something I haven't seen. Again, if we include that label in an attempt to discredit him, when a reader can easily click through and read his article if they are curious, we should also include information about his very large accomplishments. Of course, that would be undue weight, which is why it's best left without any of it. bW 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

All right here it is. The website was having some trouble so I have the cached version, but it's still the same thing [[16]]. It notes "Subsequently, his was a voice for reason and progressive thought...". One need not be a rocket scientist to understand that "progressive thought" which is explained in the next few words refers to Cottrell's contributions to SDA church theology. The label is not an attempt to discredit him anymore than is the label "most conservative school" an attempt to discredit Southern. Both labels are probably appropriate. Cottrell was clearly a Conservative and to have such a biased statement on this link a proper context should be provided, though of course that would defeat the false view Bello is trying to show in portraying him an a neutral and "mainstream" source. Fountainviewkid 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The site you named mentions many things about, in fact the passing mention that he had some progressive positions occurs towards the end and is not even close to the point of the article. If we include that little tid bit, then we should also include his many accomplishments. Or we could just include a link to his page and do all that there. His statement was made in his capacity as a noted Adventist thinker, one of the most influential that we will ever know. Again, why should that specific passing mention be noted but not his many other contributions? You are simply picking and choosing facts to achieve your desired objective in order to discredit the well-deserved criticism that Dr. Cottrell regarding Southern. Please do not re-add the contested information until consensus has been reached. YOu have done your duty under WP:BRD to be bold and addd it, it has been reverted, it is not time to discuss and reach a consensus. He never considered himself a progressive, he should not be labeled as such. bW 20:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you object to the addition on the grounds that it violates WP:DUE? Lionel (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I object based on what I've outlined above. There is no reason to pick and choose one aspect of his career and add it to this article when it can be simply outlined in his article. The fact remains that he was one of the most influential adventists in the nineties, that would be better to include than this. Also, I note, that we are currently 2:2 on inclusion, so even if this were a vote, which it is not, there is no consensus for the addition. bW 19:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove the biased statements that another editor also admitted is essentially a rant. Furthermore the other editor also stated " If the source is obviously a rant, or intensely biased, then even if the author is a respected scholar, the rant should be considered unacceptable". Therefore either we remove the rant or we add context. Otherwise we have an unscholarly propaganda statement by a supposed "influential and respected" leader.Fountainviewkid 18:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for the misleading addition that constitutes undue weight. I would note that the statement was contained in a scholarly paper that he produced, hence your assertion that it is unscholarly is without merit. Either way, the misleading label does not do him justice, and should not be added without a CLEAR consensus to do so. Please stop edit warring to get your way with the article. bW 20:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I do not have consensus for misleading additions. However, my additions are not misleading. The statement may have been in a scholarly paper but it is more of a rant as pretty much all the other editors on here have agreed on. I say either remove the rant or allow for context. Of course you can't let the context be added because that would destroy the ability to try and portray Southern as negatively as you can, something you've been rather focused on lately. Fountainviewkid 20:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you do NOT have consensus for your change. If you want to remove the pertinent quotation from this influential adventist's scholarly paper regarding Southern's ideology, then please feel free to initiate a discussion to attempt to gain consensus. As it remains now, there is NO CONSENSUS for any change and you should stop adding it. You can say anything you want but you do NOT have the ability to choose possible outcomes for everyone else. Furthermore, your personal attacks are out of place. Please either assume good faith or shut the fuck up. bW 20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks? You're the one who just cussed me out. Fountainviewkid 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Swearing is not prohibited as long as it is not a personal attack (directly referring to a user), I am allowed to fucking say "please either assume good faith or shut the fuck up." See this talk page. bW 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

collapsing comment from sock puppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is obvious to anyone who has read Cottrell's writings over the years knows that he became a progressive adventist. It is possible that he tried to hide it so he could stay employed by the church. Ninatukawewe (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BW is right. We shouldn't include the false label. Period. Tatababy (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And where did you come from Tata? I would agree we shouldn't include a false label. Progressive Adventist however is not a false label. Fountainviewkid 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

that's not true, he was my friends grandpa and he was the nicest guy ever. Tatababy (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that he was a nice guy, though if he was such a nice guy why was he so mean in the stuff he said about Southern, Hasel and other SDA conservative people or institutions. There are plenty of nice guys who are progressive Adventist's. Trust me I've met many of them. The issue is not whether someone is a nice guy. The issue is whether the label is appropriate or not. I believe it is. That or the quote is inappropriate. Fountainviewkid 23:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not get to limit the options Fountainviewkid. Those are two out of the three available options, the third of which is to leave it as is. That is also the default position it should remain at until consensus is reached for something else. The label is inappropriate, as Donald, I and now Tata have stated. bW 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not limiting the options. You are. Donald while agreeing with you, also agreed with me that the quote was not scholarly and was a "rant". As for Tata, why are you including him in here? You've essentially said that he shouldn't be around and that he may have been accidentally canvassed by you. In reality you are really the only one holding your view on this. I say either we keep the label and the quote (LionelT, others) or we see the quote as a rant and possible remove it (Donald). That would be a balanced way to do it, instead of your all or nothing approach. Fountainviewkid 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, please stay cool and do not attack each other. I personally think that neither of you are limiting the options - there are no clear-cut options and, the most proper option in my opinion is a compromise.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. So how can we "compromise"? I'm willing to allow the label and the quote, or just get rid of both. Is there another term or source we could use? Suggestions would be helpful. Fountainviewkid 23:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I need to read more about the specifics of this. It looks like however that strong adjectives shouldn't be used (e.g. you use bad instead of disastrous).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, Fountainviewkid, that's what you have been demanding the whole time. Besides, the "source" that supposedly calls him progressive is now dead. bW 23:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello, if the source is not reliable anymore, the information must be removed completely per WP:BLP. However, please note that compromising is necessary to reach consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The source for the quotation is there, it is a scholarly paper the man published. What I am opposing is synthesizing and original research to find a later source that calls him progressive (which has not been found, just sources that call a few of his positions progressive) and to stick that label on him everywhere. Progressives didn't even exist when he lived. bW 00:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that source (the one for the label) is accurate - we need a better source.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is none, Fountainviewkid has searched the ends of the web looking for one. The best we have(had, since the source is offline now) is that he took a few positions which would now be called progressive. bW 00:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I found several sources which provide the label. Furtheremore, progressive did exist when Cottrell lived. To say otherwise is to speak falsely, since he died only a short time ago. This is not synthesizing. It is not simply that he took a few "progressive" positions but that he actually advocated as a "progressive voice". Fountainviewkid 00:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we must take it out per WP:BLP.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a minute Jasper. I have several sources which cite Cottrell as "progressive". These sources are reliable, valid and are not simply self pages. Fountainviewkid 00:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please list them here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are these, Fountainviewkid, you've claimed them multiple times. The closest thing you've given us calling him a "progressive" adventist is a self-published book. bW 00:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid, you say you've found several. Please post the links here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello already pointed one out which is in the obituary in Adventist Today. [17]. Another source which puts him as "liberal" rather than progressive (I would argue they're about the same) is the book "Must We be Silent" written by Dr. Pipim who is an academic within the church. While he is controversial he nevertheless is considered authoritative on church matters, especially with having received his PhD. from the church Seminary. Fountainviewkid 00:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The link is broken.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is an unbroken version of it. http://30-254.bluehost.com/magazine/2003/01/raymond-f-cottrell-tribute. Fountainviewkid 00:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipim is neither notable (article deleted twice), authoritative or reliable. He makes most conservatives look quite moderate. Liberal and progressive are two different things anyway. The AToday link is dead. :) So where are the sources? bW 00:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipim actually is authoritative. His books have been in collaboration with some of the highest thought leaders in the church. Yes his views are conservative but he is authoritative. Fountainviewkid 00:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipim has NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever. He is a reactionary right-winger who pushes his views on everyone and attempts to vilify any who disagree. Again, if you think he is notable, he can be quoted with direct attribution in the Cottrell article, AFTER getting his own page. So if you want, you can improve the encyclopedia by writing an article on this "authoritative" "conservative" figure that would survive AfD. bW 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually he has quite a bit. He has authored books along with the head of the BRI, Assistant to the BRI, Seminary Dean, various Seminary Professors, and leading church evangelists. He was also influential in working with Dr. Damsteegt (a leading SDA academic who authored "Adventists Believe"). While you may not like his ideology as it as right wing as Cottrell is left wing, he nevertheless is a valid source. He is notable as a source on theological debates within the SDA church. Biased, yes but still notable just as Cottrell is. I'm not out for trying to re add a page on him, notability aside. Fountainviewkid 4:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Noted Adventist scholar Raymond Cottrell made some comments about the subject of this article before his death stating that it was a "conservative" school, as has alread been reliably sourced although he has gone into significant more depth on this. There is disagreement on this page regarding its inclusion. I would like to divide this into two questions:

1. Is the fact that a former editor of the church's flagship publication, the Adventist Review, an editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, founder of newsmagazine Adventist Today and noted Adventist thought leader commented on Southern in a scholarly paper notable of inclusion in the article?
2. Should he be labeled as a "progressive" adventist, despite the fact that he never considered himself a progressive Adventist and the best source that we have been provided for that designation is a obituary[18] from a publication that promotes progressive thought (which may have something to gain by saying this leading Adventist took some progressive views). Is this source enough to include, without context, that he held progressive views, despite the fact that this (deadlinked) source only said he held progressive views towards the end of his career in two areas? Or should it be included, to provide "context" for him calling SAU conservative, despite the fact that he does not self-designate himself as such?

Please read the above for context, I've tried to summarize the arguments. Thanks. bW 23:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have other sources, Fountainviewkid? I would not say this is a reliable source as it is only one person's view on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue this obituary is from a magazine which has credibility and therefore is reliable secondary source. Donald, and the other editors I believe would agree with me on this. It is not just one person's view as the magazine is not just online. If it were "self-published" it would be one person's view but it's not. Also I have the Pipim book which labels him as "liberal" so you can take your pick. And yes Pipim is considered authoritative. Finally I would suggest that we not take any action on this until the other editors also come to a consensus. As I noted they are on record supporting the use of Adventist Today as a valid source. Fountainviewkid 1:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should revert it to the previous version that had consensus and did not include the contentious label until consensus can be reached for a change. bW 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The previous version that had consensus? We've never had consensus on this page since the controversial section on ideology appeared. Other uninvolved editors have been noticing this as well. It is not just the label but rather the whole section that is contentious. We need a compromise but so far all Bello wants to do is keep the rant no context allowed. Fountainviewkid 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please STOP your unsupported incivil assertions. The text was stable in the article for over a week till Lionelt added the previous rejected wording in it. If we are to include context that can be easily found in his article, that context should include his accomplishments including editing the Adventist Review and Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and founding the Biblical Research Institute and Adventist Today. That contexts should NOT include poorly sourced labels from Pipim. bW 18:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My assertions are supported though it depends which editor you ask. The text was not stable. It was debated even before Lionel showed up. If we are to include context it should be to explain how the "rant" fits into the whole Southern relationship. The Pipim label is not poorly sourced, but that's a debate for another time. Fountainviewkid 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The only uninvolved editor to comment on this page, Jasper, clearly agreed the source wasn't sufficient. I am sure Hrafn would too if you asked him. If we include your little label to demean him without good sourcing, I insist that in addition to the accomplishments listed above we also note that he wrote 2000 pages in the Adventist Bible Commentary. You are simply trying to demean the qualifications of one of the most influential adventist leaders because you disagree with one quote. bW 19:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Right now there are currently no "uninvolved" editors that have commented below. If you look at other pages where this is being discussed there are other "uninvolved" editors who have noted the same things I mentioned. The little label is to provide context, not to demean. His views were in the progressive adventist category, especially those on Southern. I have yet to hear a "mainstream" adventist described southern as "bible-belt obscuratinism" and other ranting phrases as Cottrell did. The only thing demeaning is what he said about others, respected and scholarly though he allegedly is. Yes he helped write the commentary and as you probably know he had some big problems with mainstream SDA theology during that time. F. D. Nichol however pretty much ignored his comments in order to make the church and EGW look better. While he may have been influential he was nevertheless controversial within the church. It appears to me that you are trying to demean Southern, especially as you've already gone on record mocking it's policies and procedures. Fountainviewkid 19:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we re-write this RfC so it is more neutral? It is dripping with POV and leading, biased assertions. Lionel (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors

This is a false summary. He did not just say it was a "conservative" school. He said it was "ultraconservative", part of "Bible-belt obscuratanism", etc. These comments have already been labeled as rants by every other editor on here except the one posting the comments. While he may have the qualifications the statements within the article are highly controversial and not very scholarly. Second the progressive label is appropriate to provide context to the quote. The source which provides the quote Adventist Today is reliable and valid. The fact that it may/may not have something to gain is irrelevant, especially as this obituary is 8 years old. While he may not label himself as such others certainly did and if his quote which is rather a rant is to be included then the context of "progressive" should be added as well. Fountainviewkid 00:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the source for "progressive positions." Adventist Today is RS. The author, Jim Walters, "teaches at Loma Linda University" and is a "founding member of Adventist Today." I think he is qualified to speak about Cottrell. The phrase should be included. Lionel (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The banned user Bello is incorrect about Pipim. His article was deleted, but was recreated and is alive and well (and sourced) at Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. He appears reliable to me. If Fountain has something to add from Must We be Silent let's see a quotation... Lionel (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)