Jump to content

Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Housekeeping

When this article is unprotected or an edit protected request does go through, could the {{importance|section}} added here please be changed to {{importance-section}} as it does not show on the article in this form and it breaks the formatting of the {{primary}} template in the student life section below it (the {{importance}} template is a talk page template for wikiproject boxes). Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 20:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Is there a sockpuppet investigations of BelloWello ‎using Tatababy in his edits or has it been requested that one be done? Simbagraphix (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and I think that turned out inconclusive. Big news however see below. Fountainviewkid 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Tata is back, the suspected sock. Any suggestions so that we don't go back into edit warring? Fountainviewkid 1:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello a sockpuppet

It has been confirmed that our Bello friend is a sockpuppet of WikiManOne and has been blocked indefinitely, unless he successfully appeals the block. The link is here [1]. Once the article is released from protection we should all work on achieving a consensus. I believe Donald probably provided the fairest counter to any of our[Lionel, Simba, myself] proposed edits and would like his input on finishing up the article..Fountainviewkid 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Incredible....I didnt even suspect it. Well I think everyone else were striving hard to work together and trying to honestly improve the article with their edits, and think its fine having Donald finishing up. Great job guys....Simbagraphix (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, I think it is appropriate to lift the page protection at this time. If edit warring starts again it can be re-applied, but I urge editors to work towards consensus and use the talk page for calm discussion of disputes.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the History of SAU

Historical topics to develop

Southern began at Graysville.

  • Reiber, Milton T. (1989). Graysville: 1888-1988, Battle Creek of the South. Collegedale, Tennessee: The College Press. p. 122. Retrieved May 16, 2011.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dates to document

THE thirtieth session of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference was held at Battle Creek, Michigan, Feb. 17 to March 6, 1893. One hundred and thirty delegates were present, representing thirty-three Conferences and four mission fields. Earlier, G. W. Colcord had established Graysville Academy on his own financial responsibility but with the advice of the General Conference Committee. By the time of the 1893 session, the school had grown. It needed better accommodations. Colcord offered to fund the necessary improvements. The citizens of Graysville offered to deed to the General Conference "a desirable and liberal campus." So, the 1893 General Conference session thanked Colcord for his efforts in building up the school. They decided that the General Conference would take over the direction of the school on a permanent basis. This first school in the South inspired the session to recommend that other schools be established also. [1]


Founded in 1892, Southern Adventist University began as Graysville Academy, with 23 students in Graysville, Tennessee.

In 1916 the school moved near Chattanooga and changed its name to Southern Junior College.

In 1919 the school received its charter from the State of Tennessee.

It earned junior-college accreditation in 1936,

became a senior college in 1944,

and was accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools as a liberal arts college in 1950.

In 1996, Southern began offering graduate degrees and changed its name for the eighth time to Southern Adventist University.

Relevance

How is the fact that Angel in Chains is "based on a true story about acceptance and forgiveness" relevant to an article on the university? That its department released a film is relevant, the details of the film are not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A brief description is critical for readers unfamiliar with Angel. Especially since there is no wikilink nor external link. Lionel (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No, the description is tangential and borderline-irrelevant, as the film has only very tangential relevance to the university as a whole. University faculty/students very regularly produce films, musical works, books, paintings, sculptures, etc, etc. Unless the work in question has received a minor award, it is unusual to even mention it, unless it has received a major award, it is unusual to do more than merely mention it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Come to think of it, although the fact that the school released a film is relevant, it hardly demonstrates that the school is "notable" (Schools of Visual Art would do this all the time) unless it won an award or something. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The school releases a film every year, there is no way all of them are notable. BelloWello (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It has 2 sources, as of now. Per WP:DUE a brief description is appropriate. Bello, WP:N applies to article retention/deletion, not content. Lionel (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
For the life of me I don't understand what the big deal is. Hrafn: let's drop the WP gobbledygook for a minute. Forget all the nasty stuff Bello told you about me. Editor-a-editor... Will a reader benefit from a brief description of the film? Lionel (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No. It won't 'benefit the reader'. It is ir-rel-e-vant. It no more benefits the reader than a detailed description of some random building on campus would. It seems to be there only because, no matter how tangential and irrelevant, it appears to be about the only third-party sourced information you can find connected with the School, so you want to include it in order to give the School some vague appearance of notability. But it doesn't really work for that -- it just makes the article appear haphazard and unfocused. And if you think I'm under BelloWello's influence then you have massively misread both my personality (I'm not exactly amenable to peer pressure) and our level of contact (slight). <chuckles> HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Lionel and think the description is relevant. It should not be removed until there is consensus. Fountainviewkid 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
WHY is it relevant? WP:NOTDEMOCRACY! So it is not good enough to simply say "I'm with Lionel and think the description is relevant" when Lionel himself has offered no good reason why the description of the film is relevant. Even the existence of the film isn't particularly relevant (as it appears to have won no awards, or otherwise garnered any particular notice to the school -- which itself does not appear to have any particular notability within the university. But then this article appears to be made up pretty much solely of tails-wagging-the-dog. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The film is the subject of at least 1 secondary source, and Land cites is as the first film produced by the dept. That makes it relevant. You have stated several reasons for exclusion, but we have to remember that "There are no rules for determining what is relevant... Determine relevance... through discussion." (WP:RELE) At the end of the day, the consensus will determine inclusion or exclusion. Lionel (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Lionel stated why it's relevant using the sources. All one had to do was look at them to see the relevance (if it couldn't be seen already). The film school at Southern is significant and the first film that it gets noted for in academic sources also makes it relevant (and notable I might add). Please feel free to keep any insults to yourself or some other page. We had enough hassle on here with the sockpuppet Bello and don't need any other editor to fill in for him.Fountainviewkid 00:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


  1. That "the film is the subject of at least 1 secondary source" DOES NOT make it R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T. SAU has been mentioned on thousands of articles, on subjects from tornadoes to greeting cards -- that does not make tornadoes or greeting cards relevant.
  2. That it is the "first" (or even "first" or "first") "film produced by the dept" does not make its description any more relevant than the plot of the first novel or topic of the first poem written by a member of the university's English department or the subject of the first painting painted by somebody from the university, or any other conceivable 'firsts'. Such firsts are inevitable, and really not that relevant to an article on the university as a whole (as opposed to an article specifically on its artistic output).
  3. WP:RELE states "Information that is only tenuously connected to the subject of the article does not belong in the article at all." The plot of this film that happens to have been produced by a school of the university, is only "tenuously connected to" the university -- so "does not belong in the article at all." And details of them are even less relevant.
  4. A bunch of badly-argued points of very little relevance, entered into only after the material in question was deleted, and your lack of any argument for its retention was pointed out, isn't much of a "discussion".
  5. No Fountainviewkid, Lionel offered a bunch of half-arsed illogical excuses trying to paper over the fact that he really has no well-reasoned rationale for inclusion of this material and is just clutching at straws.
  6. That Bello is a sockpuppet does not make this material relevant -- in fact the topic is a complete and utter non sequitor. As a curious, but equally irrelevant, aside -- the editor whose appalling article-draft drew me into contact with Bello was also a sock -- so what?
  7. And to be perfectly honest Fountain-agrees-with-Lionel's-viewkid, I find your unremitting me-too-ism to be more than a waste of bandwidth. Lionel doesn't really have much of any substance to say -- having you echoing him left right and centre just draws attention to the fact.

Given the sixty majors that this university encompasses, the amount of the article spent on just three of them (most probably not even the largest), their minor outpourings, and on a loosely-associated band is ludicrously unbalanced. It's a bit like an article on Barack Obama that spent a significant amount of space on Bo (dog). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. It sounds like we have Bello2. Lord have mercy. Fountainviewkid 3:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the complete lack of anything even-vaguely-resembling a cogent argument, or even a perceptive observation -- I have very little in common with Bello. Have a WP:TROUT and get yourself a clue. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No need to respond to such insulting comments. You have more in common with Bello than you realize. For starters harassing editors on this Talk page. Feel free to assume good faith and make helpful suggestions. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 13::50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Equating expecting cogent argumentation with 'harassment' is hardly assuming good faith. And pointing out deficiencies in argumentation is hardly "insulting" -- it is simply WP:SPADE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. Fountainviewkid 17:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Industrial School

NINTH MEETING OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. Battle Creek, Mich., 2:30 p.m. , March 20, 1899,

  • General Conference had been paying for the teachers.
  • Allee requests that from here on only the principal be paid by the General Conference.

...Brother Allee also stated that for the past year the general Conference piad paid the teachers of the Southern Industrial School, which was appreciated very much by the Board of that institution. He felt that they would hardly have known what to do, had it not been for the help that was' given by the General Conference. He also made the following requests That the General Conference pay the principal of the Southern Industrial School. This does not include the sala- ries of the other teachers. It was-

Moved by Elder Loughborough, seconded by Elder Morrison, that the General Conference pay the principal of the Southern Industrial School. Carried. pr.B. This closes May 2g, 1899.L.A,H.pf¥.t.]

  • The school was out of debt.
  • It constructed new buildings as funds became available.
  • They made use of student labor.

Elder Allee stated that the institution was out of debt; but their equipment was such that it required all the income from various sources to build and equip buildings for school purposes; and he desired the mind of the Committee as to what they should do in the future— —whether they should go on as they had in the past, and put up the buildings as fast as they could obtain funds, by the use of the student labor, or not. It was -

Moved by Elder Moon and seconded by Elder Morrison, that, inasmuch as the school was not costing the General Conference for anything of that kind, and was not running in debt, the plan outlined by Brother Allee for the extension and enlargement of the work at Graysville be endorsed, Carried.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCC/GCC1899/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=39

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Graysville Academy

Basic facts to document and develop:

KILGORE

  • Kilgore was the superintendent of District #2 and later President of the Southern Union. Before coming South he had been the President of the Illinois Conference for three years. Long before he had fought in the civil war and was a highly respected solder. See obituary by G. I. Butler, 1912.
  • Kilgore spoke strongly for Christian education in the South.
  • Kilgore quote: GCB March 8, 1891 The council recently held in Atlanta, ... 7. The greatest call and most imperative demand of all for the advancement of the third angel's message in the southern field is for a school where workers may be developed on southern soil to labor in this field- The circumstances which meet us in this section of the country are peculiar, and to make rapid the advancement of the cause in this field, it is necessary that this Conference should take immediate steps to set on foot some measure which will provide for relief in this direction. pp. 4, 5 http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1891-02/index.djvu

GEORGE W. COLCORD

  • Kilgore called G.W. Colcord to help him. Colcord was from the West where he had started the school which became Walla Walla University.
  • Colcord arrived at Graysville in 1891 (Spalding, p. 505)
  • Colcord put his own finances into the school at Graysville.
  • It was run by Colcord under Kilgore's oversight.
  • "George W. Colcord, founder of Milton Academy in Oregon, which eventuated in Walla Walla College; founder of our first school in the South, Graysville Academy, now Southern Missionary College."
  • Spalding, Arthur Whitefield (1949). Captains of the Host (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association. p. 704.

SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL 1897

  • Graysville Academy became renamed Southern Industrial School in 1897 with GCC endorsement in 1898

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

General Conference Report on Graysville Academy

Graysville Academy, Graysville, Tenn. — At the last session of the General Conference it was voted that a school should be established in District No. 2. (Year Book, page 57.) At the institute in Austell, Ga, a committee was appointed to take charge of the school interests. The committee consisted of R. M. Kilgore, 0. A. Olsen, H. Lindsay, C. L. Boyd, G. W, Colcord, L. H. Crisler, and W. W. Prescott The committee met in January 1892, at Chattanooga, Tenn., and after looking over the situation, and hearing a report from Elders Kilgore and Colcord, the committee appointed H. Lindsay and W. W. Prescott as a sub-committee to recommend as to location, Brother Lindsay and I afterwards visited Atlanta, Ga., to study the educational situation there: and I afterwards visited Nashville, Tenn., for the same purpose. After looking over the field thoroughly the majority of the committee, meeting at Battle Creek, decided that for the present, local schools would best meet the situation in the South ; that the time had not come for establishing one central institution.

Under the counsel of this committee Elder Colcord opened a school at Graysville, Tenn., Feb. 20, 1892. Twenty-three were in attendance the first day, and the enrollment the first term was thirty-two. The second term opened in September, 1892, with an enrollment of thirty-two, and a report from Elder Colcord, dated January 16, states that the enrollment at present is sixty-two. At the beginning of the work Elder Colcord was assisted only by his wife; at present three teachers give their full time to the work, and there are three who give partial time. The growth of this school, and the character of the work done, and the high value that is placed upon it by those who have the privilege of attending it and know of its work, open a way not only for increased facilities for this school, which is now held in a rented building with really very poor facilities, but also suggests the need of establishing other schools of a similar character in other parts of the South.

The General Conference Education Secretary, along with District #2 Superintendent, R. M. Kilgore and veteran educator George W. Colcord worked together, along with their committees, to establish the school at Graysville. The first term began February, 1892 with 23 students. The second term began in September of that year. By January 1893 Colcord reported that 62 students were in attendance. Colcord and his wife began the school, by 1893 there were three teachers and another three part time teachers. Prescott considered the positive attitude of the the school's faculty, students, and supporter to be indicators of the school's future success and good reason to start other such schools in the South.
Prescott, W. W. (February 23, 1893), "Report of the Educational Secretary: New Institutions", Daily Bulletin of the General Conference, 5 (15): 354 (electronic 6) {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Old Debate Reignited

We have a new editor which has reignited an old debate about the "progressive" quote for Cottrell. I would invite this new editor to look through the archives and read the debate, which extends over many posts. So far it seems that myself, Lionel, Simba, and maybe one other editor were supportive of keeping the "progressive" label. Do we want to reignite this discussion or did the community come to a consensus? Fountainviewkid 19:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. First, I have to say that I know absolutely nothing about this subject and have been an uninvolved editor until now. I would have the same view no matter which article this was. I came here after seeing that Tatababy was blocked by Barek for edit warring with you, Fountainviewkid. I looked at the controversial material, followed the link in the citation and found it dead, and so reverted. We can't take your word that what is at the bluehost.com site is what was at the atoday.org site, or for that matter, that the link you cited ever existed -- I could say it was at http://www.nytimes.com/raymond-f-cottrell-tribute.html, but that doesn't make it so.
As you suggested, I looked through the earlier Cottrell discussion on this page. Clearly there is some contention over the word "Progressive". Are you claiming that you, "Lionel, Simba, and maybe one other editor" constitute consensus? It appears that BelloWello, Tatababy, Jasper Deng, and I, all disagree. My main contention is that neither of your links -- the dead one to atoday.org or the live one to bluehost.com -- is to a reliable source. I had been assuming good faith, but from the discussion above it appears you have been well aware that the link in your citation was dead, yet you persisted in re-inserting that dead link and the controversial material supported by it. So, it appears that you have not been acting in good faith. The bluehost.com link is not a reliable source either. I'm going to revert it again and unless you can find a reliable source, please don't re-insert it again before consensus here.
Furthermore, the bluehost.com citation doesn't even seem to support the assertion made in the article. James Walters saying that Cottrell "called for progress" and supported "progressive positions" is not the same as saying Cotrell was a "Progressive Adventist" any more than you, me or anyone supporting or opposing a small group of positions such as birth control, abortion, or the death penalty make us a liberal, conservative, progressive, or libertarian. The most you can say from that citation is that he supported progress or progressive positions. I hope that you can see that. Mojoworker (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I looked up the bluehost/Adventist Today situation and found some information. It appears that Bluehost is the web hosting site for Adventist Today. That can be clearly seen in this link [2]. Therefore the blue host cite is the actual source, just not as clearly specified. Fountainviewkid 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please don't post in the middle of other people's comments -- it makes it impossible to tell who said what without going back and looking at the diffs. If you must do it, at least sign the editor's name to the fragment left behind immediately preceding your post, so people can tell who it's from. I moved my previous comment back together. As for Bluehost, I have no doubt that you are correct and that webpage probably really is Adventist Today's page, but according to Wikipedia's Bluehost article, they are "collectively hosting well over 1.9+ million domains with its sister companies", it would be trivial to put a copy of that article somewhere on Bluehost and edit it to say virtually anything -- that Cottrell was a respected Pagan or Muslim for example. Imagine this page, if I had paid to host it at Bluehost. Unless you can show some proof that the webpage in question belongs to Adventist Today, you can't use it as a source, since it is an "ill-defined entity". You really need to read WP:RS more thoroughly. Mojoworker (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You can see for yourself when you type in the link and slowly works backwards that it does in fact link to the archives of the Adventist Today website. It's not that Blue host just put one trivial article there, but rather that the whole archives for that site can be found there. Additionally, as I already noted the source is in print. Fountainviewkid 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC
I have been acting in good faith, as having the other editors. If you see me as not having acted in good faith, then by extension, Lionel, Simba and possibly another editor you would also have to accuse. I persisted in re-adding the "progressive" label because I feel that it is needed to provide context to an already extremely biased quote. I only used the bluehost link because it provides the same material that the published version has. Of course I can't prove that just as I couldn't prove to you that a book source is actually what it says it is. Please don't revert it unless you can demonstrate that I am being deceptive about the Adventist Today article. As even Bello (the main opposition) admitted, the Adventist Today article does exist. Fountainviewkid 00:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that the "extremely biased quote" is properly sourced and the other editors you mention haven't been inserting references that they know are bogus. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your claim (below) that you thought the ref link you kept re-inserting was to the bluehost site and not the dead link. I have no problem with you or anyone else inserting the word "progressive", but since some people clearly think it's contentious, you need to find a reliable source for it. And the Bluehost page by itself isn't a WP:RS. I understand why you used the bluehost link and I really do believe that "it provides the same material that the published version has", as you stated. But my opinion, your opinion, or BelloWello's opinion don't matter since it's still not a reliable source because Bluehost is an "ill-defined entity". Please don't take this the wrong way, since I don't mean this as an insult -- I don't think you are being deceptive, I just think you are ill informed about WP:RS. Mojoworker (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes the biased quote may be sourced, but that doesn't mean it's still acceptable. As for the other editors, you are wrong if you have they haven't been inserting references that are bogus yet I have, because they have been trying to insert the SAME reference back in that I was. Check your facts and learn the details before acting or saying things that aren't true. I've been trying to act with peace and consensus on this talk page. We were getting close to achieving it. As for the Blue Host, I shall repeat that the magazine is also in Print. That means we can use the print source if you so desire. Either way the material is there, as Donald and even Bello acknowledged. I feel that you don't really understand the situation. You may understand wikipedia and it's policies, but you don't understand the intricacies of the issue as well as the sources cited. Donald it seems does which is why I like using him as a barometer for balance. He's been less condemning than you've been, probably because he has a greater understanding of the situation. Fountainviewkid 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC
You admit that you know absolutely nothing about the subject and yet go ahead and engage in controversial actions against the consensus of the editors who are knowledgeable. Notice that I pointed out that this is also found in print in a magazine Journal titled "Adventist Today". If you want I can change the citation to the print source. I am not claiming that my view constitutes a consensus. Read the debate again. First, Bello and Tata have been blocked as either suspected or current socks. Jasper and yourself disagree, but both of you have admitted that you do not understand the material at hand. Something both myself and Simba at least seem to do. As for the citation being dead, I did not realize it was the dead link that was posted. I had assumed that we had changed the link to the blue host site. Either way the source exists whether online or in print. It is not right to go and change back a valid statement until there has at least been some discussion. And yes Walters was actually saying that Cottrell was a "progressive Adventist". Study the issue more including both what "progressive Adventist" means (there's a specific definition) and the positions Cottrell took. He supported "progressive positions". If you want I can modify it back to that statement, but I see no reason to remove the qualifier without a valid consensus. Your view does not constitute as that consensus, therefore I would please ask that you stop removing the "progressive" label until we come to a conclusion. Fountainviewkid 00:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think my actions are controversial or against consensus. I don't need to know anything about the subject to see that there is contention from several editors about the use of "Progressive Adventist" and that the reference used to support it is not a reliable source. Can you show me the diff where consensus was gained to use the term? It appears that DonaldRichardSands, BelloWello, Tatababy, Jasper Deng, and I, all disagree -- in fact it looks like there is more opposition than support for that wording. In any case, you've screwed up the reference formatting, I am going to remove it, but, as a compromise and in the spirit of cooperation, I'll leave the wording unchanged pending further discussion as you've requested. Mojoworker (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You keep acting as if I'm the only one supporting a certain wording. Adventist Today is a reliable source as even Bellow and Donald admitted. As for the consensus, if Tata is a sockpuppet then I wouldn't consider him/her a valid vote. Bello is currently blocked as a sockpuppet so his vote I would also say is questionable. Really it's only Donald (who only moderately objected) and Jasper that were in opposition. We already had this discussion and after Bello was blocked the issue died down. While Donald may have been in opposition he was peaceful enough to not push the issue, waiting for a compromise to emerge. It appears one may be coming now, but it would have been better if it could have been done without all the false accusations from uninvolved and uninformed editors. Fountainviewkid 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC

May I provide a suggestion that we hold of editing the "Ideology" section until there is some kind of compromise agreed to by the editors. This has been a dispute for a while. I don't believe it is right to simply enter right into the middle and engage in an action that at least half the knowledgeable editors disagree with. Fountainviewkid 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Was Cottrell a respected Adventist scholar? Was he influential? The fact that he is debated here lends credence to his influence. Is there a source that can be cited that he was influential? Maybe. What about respected? The question needs to be asked, respected by whom? He certainly was an accomplished Adventist. But that doesn't prove ongoing respect. Respect in Adventism varies. I recently worked on the Graham Maxwell article. He certainly was influential. He was respected by what seemed to be the whole church for decades. But, when he died, the Review and Herald did not even include an obituary for him. Doesn't seem like respect. Cottrell's last few years was probably much like Maxwell's. Ignored by the establishment. So, in Adventism, respect comes and goes and shifts with the tides of spiritual thinking. I suggest that a low key assertion, kind of helpful to both sides should be adopted. I don't think anyone would challenge the idea that Cottrell was influential. But, he was not respected by all. It would be kind of like describing Desmond Ford as a respected Adventist theologian. He was for decades but after Glacier View (1980) it would not be accurate to so describe him that way. However, he remained influential. Cottrell was at those meetings about Ford and took stenographic notes of the proceedings. Cottrell was his own man and was not afraid, in his retirement years, to challenge the church's leadership on some of this. I am opposed to the use of the progressive label because he lived before the progressive label was in vogue. Perhaps he was progressive ahead of other progressives. lol DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:22, 23

May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Donald, I know you are opposed, but are you going to deny that the Adventist Today source is not valid, as Mojo is trying to assert. I think we first must admit that the source is reliable and valid, then have the debate (again) over the "progressive" label. The source clearly says that he took a number of "progressive positions" and I think even you Donald might admit this point. As you know my only reason for adding the label is to provide context to the extremely biased statement about Southern. I have suggested just doing away with the whole Ideology section altogether (other universities don't seem to have one), but that was never really concluded. Fountainviewkid 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing the "Ideology" section, it makes little sense in this article as it can change with a new administrators or presidents of the university, it just was meant to tarnish the schools image, much as is done in political jargon to label anyone who disagrees with your point of view as 'neoconservative' or 'right wing extreemist'. Simbagraphix (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the ideology of Southern is important. I suspect it is even important to Southern's admin. Kind of a niche market. Early on, Southern described itself as a school "with standards". Whether we label Cottrell progressive or not, he certainly was unconventional. His undiplomatic description of Southern illustrates his being outside the mainstream. Mainstream Adventists don't talk that way even if they think it privately. I have been looking at the Raymond Cottrell Wikipedia article. It is significant that the Adventist Review carried an obituary for him in 2003. I think it is important that Cottrell not be portrayed as a main stream Adventist in his retirement years. He addressed issues which took him out of the main stream. He could probably be better described as outspoken and critical of crucial issues of church policy and doctrine. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree Donald that it "could" be important, however in this article I agree with Simba that it makes little sense except to tarnish the school's image. The term "Ideology" itself has negative connotations that I don't believe the leadership of the school would favor. This is obviously done to make it appear as in a political manner as "extreme". Donald, would you at least agree that the section as it is now (especially w/out any qualifier to Cottrell's beliefs) appears to tarnish Southern or at the very least is not "balance and from a fair viewpoint". You have admitted that the description is undiplomatic, yet you don't support labeling him "progressive" as some authoritative authors did. Would you support changing the label from "progressive" to a phrase mentioning his views being outside the mainstream as well as critical/outspoken? If it were done in the right manner I could probably support that. With the extremely biased statement, however, I oppose removing the only balancing context currently in existence. Fountainviewkid 01:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Dead link I am the editor who added the content in question and cited it. It was reverted due to I think WP:UNDUE, not because it was a dead link. Note that the users who removed it, Bello and Tata, were able to read and evaluate the source and determine that the content was unacceptable. From WP:DEADLINK:

Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.

Lionel (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but a dead link is quite clearly not a reliable source. If you read further in the WP:DEADLINK article, at WP:DEADLINK#Keeping dead links the rational for keeping a deadlink is explained as follows:

A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference.

In other words, a deadlink may still provide some useful information, but a deadlink is not a verifiable source now. Also, please note the word solely in the quotation. I didn't remove it solely because it was a dead link. Rather, since the content had been challenged by several editors, I reverted it under WP:CHALLENGE

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate.

and WP:BURDEN

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it.

Mojoworker (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It is still better to use the Talk page before engaging in removal of material. I believe there are guidelines which say this as well. We have to be careful in how we "selectively quote" the rules for editing. It could easily appear as if Lionel's statement and Mojo's statement are in contradiction. For example from Mojo's statement we find out that a deadlink might provide greater information and might still be useful. Lionel's statement adds that not all information must have a working link. Therefore it appears that some information may be allowed to appear even though it doesn't have a current citation. Of course, this source actually exists in print as well as online, and the Blue Host cite (the web hosting cite for the sources web page) shows the entire source. The fact that trademarks appear on the blue host cite also provide credibility. Yes the context has "previously" been challenged by other editors, but to be honest the entire Ideology section had been challenged by editors of varying viewpoints. The debate ended when the key opposition editor was blocked for being a sockpuppet. At that point a sort of "silent consensus" emerged to keep the Ideology section as it was with both the contentious label and the controversial quote. Thankfully, however that section has now been edited in a way that I believe demonstrates balance and NPOV. Fountainviewkid 20:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You are still not getting it. Let me try to explain the part I think you are not understanding. The problem all along from my perspective was your citation with the dead link that you kept re-inserting. Hopefully you now understand why that's not a reliable source, even if it was reliable at the time it was originally inserted. And while a dead link may provide some useful information to find a replacement citation, the dead link itself is not a reliable source. Now, If you look at WP:Verifiability you will see the following near the top of the page:
Notice that Verifiability is a policy. Next see WP:CONLIMITED and note that

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

It doesn't matter if everyone here saw the article at atoday.org and decided to keep the citation, because as soon as any random editor challenged it, it's in their rights to remove it per policy since it's not properly sourced and no amount of consensus on the article talk page can change that. Once you replaced the dead link with the the Bluehost link, while not ideal for reasons previously mentioned, then discussion can come into play to help form a consensus to keep it or not. In any case, it appears to be a moot point now, but hopefully instructive for the future. Mojoworker (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Remember, that this also exists in Adventist Today in print. That's why I edited the link. Perhaps I edited it wrong, but I was trying to edit it to the print source, which is verifiable, even if I didn't do it exactly right. First, we wouldn't necessarily need a source for EVERYTHING, however this does have a source. As you admitted it exists in the Adventist Today article. Are you going to go back and deny that you did not see that article or read it? Your own evidence arguing that it's a biased source proves that you knew it existed and you read it. We were working towards a consensus, though. Please don't ruin it. Fountainviewkid 14:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No, we don't necessarily need a source for everything, but you do need a reliable source for anything that is challenged. Also, I never "admitted it exists in the Adventist Today article" since I never had an opportunity to read the article anywhere but at the Bluehost site. I also never said it was a "biased source" -- I did say it's not a reliable source, or perhaps you are confusing me with another editor. Look, I believe you when you say that the information at the Bluehost webpage is exactly the same as what you saw at the atoday.org web page, but my opinion doesn't matter. Did you read WP:Verifiability? The first sentence is

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

As I've said all along, the Bluehost link is marginal at best -- there is no proof that the Bluehost site actually belongs to atoday.org and would be trivial to fake, and now that BelloWello has challenged it under WP:Verifiability and removed it, if you want to put it back in, the burden is on you to find a reliable source or take it to WP:RSN or WP:ANI or ask for mediation -- or continue to edit war and see where that goes... Mojoworker (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We do have a reliable source called "Adventist Today". As for blue host, I can provide strong evidences that it is the host site for Adventist Today and that the blue host link is in fact from the Adventist Today server, which demonstrates its WP:Verifiability. Rather than removing a portion of an article it is better to first discuss it on the Talk page, a process that was already going on. Especially when there is already a lively discussion on the Talk page, to go through and arbitrarily remove part of the section in question to suit ideology is against the spirit of wikipedia itself. There are reasons why it's not being defended even by editors who don't support it's inclusion. That section will probably be removed, but it's better to have it happen under compromise and consensus. Fountainviewkid 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have "a reliable source called 'Adventist Today'" then properly cite it and all this drama will be over. Rather than arbitrarily re-inserting contentious and challenged material that is not reliably sourced and thus against Wikipedia policy, why don't you discuss it on the talk page until it's decided whether or not bluehost.com is truly a reliable source. How many times does it need to be said? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Mojoworker (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we ready to remove the "progressive" label? With the changes made to the Ideology section I think I can support such a change if Lionel and Simba will as well? Perhaps this will bring peace to the article. Fountainviewkid 15:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Focus on Ideology

I have pasted a section from another discussion page to help focus the issue.

The quote from Cottrell as it is currently stands alone and without balance. We need to find a statement from another influential Adventist who can provide balance to Cottrell's undiplomatic and certainly unflattering opinion about Southern.

Beginning of paste from other discussion page

Thanks for your work on the Southern article. We need to solve the ideology/progressive dilemma. What do you think about my proposal to remove the whole Ideology section? I see it as the only real way to achieve a compromise. I only wanted the "progressive" label next to Cottrell to clarify where the comments are coming from. If you have any other suggestions on how to do this they would very much be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fountainviewkid, I think the ideology of Southern is important. I suspect it is even important to Southern's admin. Kind of a niche market. Early on, Southern described itself as a school "with standards". Whether we label Cottrell progressive or not, he certainly was unconventional. His undiplomatic description of Southern illustrates his being outside the mainstream. Mainstream Adventists don't talk that way even if they think it privately. I have been looking at the Raymond Cottrell Wikipedia article. It is significant that the Adventist Review carried an obituary for him in 2003. I think it is important that Cottrell not be portrayed as a main stream Adventist in his retirement years. He addressed issues which took him out of the main stream. He could probably be better described as outspoken on crucial issues of church policy and doctrine. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you at least agree that the Adventist Today source is reliable and valid (and that it exists as far as you know)? I know we may disagree on the label "progressive" but do you at least admit that we have reliable sources stating he took those positions (even if he never characterized it that way)? Thanks for your suggestions and balance. Fountainviewkid 01:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Adventist Today is reliable and valid. I think the argument against Adventist Today is that its very name suggests a bias toward Adventism. But, this is not the case. Adventist Today like Spectrum follows an independent track. They certainly are not bias in favor of mainstream Adventism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Good to know. This debate was reignited when the new editor accused those of us who supported the progressive label as not editing in good faith because the link was broken. My point to him, was that though the link was broken, Adventist Today is a reliable and valid source and it also exists in print. Yes we both definitely know that they have more of a (dare I use the term) "progressive" slant to them, just like Spectrum only with more moderation. Should I test out a few edits to the "ideology" section using your suggestions (non-mainstream, critical, outspoken, etc.)? I don't know exactly how I would go about doing that, but it seems you do. Any suggestions? Fountainviewkid 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The issue as I see it is for Cottrell to be balanced with a more moderate writer. Those who like Southern's approach to Adventism certainly have said so and why, so where. Where? Cottrell was not speaking diplomatically: I think all would agree. Nor was he speaking accurately, IMO. The purge of the 1980s decade was unfortunate from my perspective and I don't consider myself a "Progressive Adventist" though someone else might. I think it is too early to revert the text. Let thinks simmer for awhile. Perhaps a consensus can come out of this yet. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Amen I agree strongly. Please feel free to post this response on the Southern Talk page so Mojo can see it before he accuses me of anymore bad faith edits, and reverts the "silent consensus". I say silent, because after Bello Wello's block the issue kind of died out. You may have disagreed, but not to the point where you were going to press it. Hopefully we can achieve a consensus which I think we might since most of the editors still involved can be fair minded. Fountainviewkid 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me reiterate: I have no problem with the term "progressive", although it appears that others here do. I'm mostly trying to get you to cite it properly. It appeared suspicious that in your edit war with Tatababy that you were supporting your version with what appeared to be a bogus citation and in a somewhat bullying manner. Others have since said that they have seen the page before it died, so I believe them, but you should have inserted the {{dead link}} tag when you were repeatedly adding it back in and you were well aware that it was dead. Mojoworker (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Mojoworker and others, I think the dead link has been fixed. Also, I have recast Cottrell's statements as criticism in the context of the Jerry Gladsen situation, as is the case in his article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Mojo, we are working on a consensus here and there are several of us on here who have knowledge about the sources and the Adventist history of the times. Be careful in your accusations and which side you take. You have accused me of bullying Tata even though it was Jasper who called him out as I did. If you go back and read our reactions to Tata you will be able to see that for yourself. I saw the page as well before it died and even posted the blue host link just to show it again. Fountainviewkid 12:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What is being missed is that it is not the ideology of Southern per se, it is the ideaology of many of the constituents of that time. This is the middle of the Bible belt, even Democrats are conservative and so it is not a true picture to put Cottrell's statements of decades ago which may no longer apply, or doesnt take into account that the Administration and the constituents have certainly changed over the years and might be liberal or more open to new ideas and views today, as they have. Also there is no context to the statements and of course no other statement to give balance, its like quoting that Bill O'Reily says that Obama is the most left wing socialist for legislation he proposes and anti-semitic President for telling Isreal to go back to their 1967 boders, just because a person said it doesnt make it true. So even though Cottrell statements may have had some validity decades ago, I think we have to find and present their relavence for the institution as it stands today, and just as the South has changed we have to take that into account with more current statements on the institition, administration and students in their present state.Simbagraphix (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cottrell's statement dates back to 2002, the year before he died. He was telling a story that dated back another 15 years. But note his brackets (and still is). Thus Cottrell viewed Southern to be the way he stated in 2002, as well. I consider his statement that of a disappointed and retired Adventist. There are other Adventists, even today (2011) who consider Southern to be the source of fundamental mainstream Adventism. Of course, if we want to describe the ultra-fundamentalists we would have to look to some of the independent ministries, perhaps those located or begun in the Southern Bible belt. Cottrell's statement allows us to profile the fundamentalist ideology that Southern is known for. Dever said it more nicely, they take the Bible seriously there. I think Cottrell is probably correct when he suggests that Jerry Gladsen would not have been treated as he was by the other Adventist colleges. I took classes from Gladsen and found his Biblical presentations to be conservative and sound. Some criticized him for using evangelical textbooks which introduced textual criticism, but even these textbooks were on the conservative end of Christianity. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps yes perhaps no. We will never really know for sure. You are right that certain ministries (especially say Hartland and the like) exemplify the ultra-fundamentalist tendency. I think however we have to be careful with these terms, because there are degrees within the church. For example other "independent ministries" such as those associated with ASI have some of the characteristics of this tendency, but not all of them. For example they may support a focus on behavior, while there may be disagreement about the nature of Christ or what type of dress code should be followed. I went to an academy of this type so I've seen the debate firsthand. I don't know if it is true to say Southern is a proponent of "fundamentalist" ideology. This is a criticism of it by the "progressives", but its not a claim without dispute. As for Gladsen, perhaps he would have done better at other universities, but his challenge to the pillars of the Adventist faith such as his support for Ford and the "apostate" view of 1844 and the sanctuary, his sympathy with the historical-critical method, his view on Ellen White's inspiration, all are outside the mainstream of the church and put him clearly in the "progressive" camp. While he may still be on the "conservative" end of Christianity, that still doesn't make his beliefs "seventh-day adventist". I would consider him as someone though saw himself as Seventh-day Adventist yet questioned core tenants of the faith. I would argue that in many ways Southern actually represents more the middle of the church (especially when you look at the church as a whole in the world). Nearly all of the Adventist colleges in north America are to the left of the mainstream Adventist, which makes sense since the NAD is that way. This split could easily be seen in the election of Ted Wilson who won 72% of the vote and has been seen in the debates over women's ordination. We have to remember that American Adventism is not a great measurement for the middle of the church. Fountainviewkid 16:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Gladsen's views as you described them came later. When he taught at Southern, at least when I was there, there was no indication of that. As I studied Gladsen's development especially after he became employed by the Disciples of Christ, I saw an interesting shift. Almost like he gave himself permission to doubt some of the teachings of Adventism. Do we really understand the cognitive dissonance in our own souls? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right and Gladson's views came later than his time at Southern. I personally disagree, however, based on his own testimony. He admits that his "development" began at Vanderbilt during the 70's and also admits that he defended a version of the historical critical method in a discussion with Hasel and church leadership in 1986. He admits that between 1984-86 "As I continued to study the theological problems confronting the church, the conviction deepened that, as far as I could determine, there was no resolution short of a revision of key elements in traditional Adventist theology...My research also reinforced confidence in the historical-critical method" (Gladson, The Crime of Dissent: My Search for Integrity [3]). Yes he gave himself over to doubt many teachings in Adventism, but this occurred even while he was at Southern. From my estimation it looks like he "tried" to be careful in what he taught, but there was enough "heresy" that questions arose. This happens all the time in Conservative denominations. You either speak your mind and get fired, you keep quiet and only teach official doctrine, or you try to do a combo. Jerry opted for the combo, but he may have been a little too free in speaking his mind. As for cognitive dissonance, no we probably don't fully understand it. That's the "danger" of higher education for a very conservative religious person. One must rectify what is being taught by learned scholars with what one has been taught by common family and friend. Fountainviewkid 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Now it may be that you all were not there when it happened, but it was not about Jerry Gladsen or the other teachers, it was about Desmond Ford as his controversial view had tensions high in the Adventist world, and the match that lit the fire was Edward Heppenstalls visit to the campus and preaching that Sabbath at the Collegedale Church. The fundamentalist went on the warpath and finally got Frank Knittel and anyone else they could get their hands on, so Jerry Gladsen and the others were unfortunately swept out by the reaction to Heppenstall and of course Desmond Ford. That is what was at the heart of the controversy, at least at Southern...Simbagraphix (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Simba, Thanks for this last addition. Do you remember the date for Heppenstall's sermon? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thats what I have been searching for, my memory says October 1980 and when I find it, I will add in to the conroversy section so it gives a truer picture and makes more sense than the rude event its linked with.Simbagraphix (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What "rude event" would you be refering to Simba? All I know we're discussing is that a highly influential adventist made a somewhat abrasive but wholly accurate comment about Southern. Regardless, we currently DO NOT have a source for calling him a progressive and it should be removed and not readded without a reliable source. Furthermore, there was never consensus to overturn previous consensus to ADD the troublesome label. To those who are trying to define Cottrell's comments for him, please make sure you have a reliable source making the connection, otherwise, it will probably be synthesis and hence, unallowable. bW 12:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Bello, we're working towards consensus. Please don't mess it up be re-engaging in edit wars and the like. The Adventist Today source says he took "progressive positions" and you yourself admitted the source actually exists, even if you are going back on your word now. Please we've been through a huge struggle on this. Fountainviewkid 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Consensus does not trump policy. Sorry. Do we have a source for it or not? Because right now, its unsourced. bW 13:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
First, we wouldn't necessarily need a source for EVERYTHING, however this does have a source. As you admitted it exists in the Adventist Today article. Are you going to go back and deny that you did not see that article or read it? Your own evidence arguing that it's a biased source proves that you knew it existed and you read it. We were working towards a consensus, though. Please don't ruin it. Fountainviewkid 13:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC
I have added a working link to the Southern Adventist University citation #58 next to Raymond Cottrell's name. This is for Jim Walters' 2003 tribute to Cottrell found in Adventist Today. Also, I have included the quote where Walters actually uses the "progressive positions" phrase in his tribute.

Walters, Jim (January, February 2003). "Raymond Cottrell: A Tribute". Adventist Today. 11 (1). Riverside, CA: adventist today Foundation: 10. ISSN 1079-5499. Retrieved May 24, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

In his tribute to Raymond Cottrell, Walters mentions some of the "progressive" positions in these words, "Throughout his life Ray was a remarkable thought leader in our denomination. It is usual to be productive in one's prime years, but consider Ray's accomplishments both early and late in his long career. In his 30s, teaching Bible at PUC,he became one of the first Adventist theologians to join a scholarly religious society; and simultaneously, he cofounded the first Adventist Biblical research fellowship, an association that evolved into the current Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference. After formal retirement, in his 70s, Ray advocated the need for a judicial branch of church governance. In his 80s he argued for relative autonomy for the General Conference Divisions in our increasingly diverse world church. And then, just last year (2002), he courageously called for progress beyond our dated sanctuary doctrine. Was Ray right in all these progressive positions? I suggest that question misses the larger issue. The point is that Ray epitomized the spirit of Adventism and its fearless pioneers in conscientiously advocating what he saw as vital and true." p. 10. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the way its currently worded, Donald, although I would like to reword "In 2001, Adventist scholar, the late Raymond Cottrell..." to "In 2001, noted Adventist scholar, the late..." I think this should be pretty uncontroversial. Also, do you mind if we remove the bolding in the reference? It seems unnecessary, if a reader is interested in background information, I would argue the other accomplishments listed there are much more important and should be bolded, or just remove all the boldings. bW 01:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Bello, but the rest of us like it the way it is. "Noted" would imply mainstream especially with this rant. As for the bolding, please keep that in there. That is necessary to help explain the context of the quote. Fountainviewkid 01:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, FVK, you don't speak for "the rest of us." By bolding it, you are trying to say he was progressive and hence discredit him. But since you insist on bolding, I am also bolding other important aspects of his career. I fail to see how saying "noted" would be incorrect, I would say that an editor of the Commentary, the Review, founder of the BRI, AToday and an editor of Spectrum would be a noted figure. bW 01:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll go for "noted" if you also add "controversial" in there too. Fountainviewkid 01:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to give credit and say that Donald has done excellent job with a fair and balance hand, and add that we need to stop focusing and giving undo weight to a few 'incidents' or statements from a individual, and put them in perspective and leave it at that. It seems this has become more about issues that go far beyond the scope of the university, and the article is in danger of becoming distorted. Need to keep it simple, and focus on the institution and its people and history, take out what were minor issues or context that really are not about the school but of wider Adventist issues.Simbagraphix (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd generally prefer to stay out of this particular discussion regarding Southern's ideology, I think the problem with the link was that it was typed as .org when in fact Adventist Today's web site uses .com. 78.26 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but another problem still arises because Adventist Today went through and reformatted their site (using Bluehost of course). I used .com and got a totally different article reflecting this change. The archive can probably be found somewhere (both print and on the web hosting site) though so we shouldn't remove the link until a consensus is achieved. Personally with the editing that Donald has done I am almost comfortable with removing the contentious label since context has now been provided. Fountainviewkid 15:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Waters' comment is back online, and thus WP:V, as well as WP:RS. Lionel (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the Walters ref has been WP:V and WP:RS for a couple of days now since Donald changed it to a {{Cite journal}}. But the URL still doesn't seem to work -- not that it needs to, but it would be nice if it did. It says "You do not have adequate permissions to view this page. Click here to login.", do you have a working URL that's different than http://www.atoday.com/article.php?id=668? Not that it's necessary, but might as well use it if there is a working URL. Mojoworker (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Click on the pic of the cover of the Jan/Feb issue. A pdf of the entire issue comes up. The passage is on pg 10 of the pdf.Lionel (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying. The link is http://www.atoday.com/issue_pdf.php?pdf=2003-01.pdf which is what Donald had initially, but then noted it as being unpredictable and changed it to the other atoday.com page. Is it stable enough to change it back, or is it better to wait a bit? Mojoworker (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Adventist Today is going to be making changes to their website for the next month or so. Most of the major changes are done but they still have other stuff on the way. bW 06:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Yearbook 1893, p. 66
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Adventist_University/Archive_5&oldid=1140213952"