Jump to content

Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Three month Article 1RR proposal

I was making this proposal on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents when the discussion got closed, so will propose it here. That a three month 1RR restriction on the whole article for all editors, per the suggestion by Fountainviewkid and Mathsci. Beginning with a blanket edit restriction till June 1, 2011 to quiet things down. I think this is will allow the editors time to reach a consensus and go foward on working on the article.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what we did with the blanket edit restriction, but I went ahead and used my 1 RR/day to change the article back to how it originally was (before Tata reverted it). I promise I won't be RR anymore during the next 24 hours. Is there a way we can temporarily lock this article? Fountainviewkid 15:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The proposal was adopted: 1RR is in effect. See the top of this talk page. Don't need to block the page. Thanks too all of the drama generated by a certain editor there are a ton of lookie loos watching this tiny little article eager to report 1RR violations to the nearest admin. And trust me: that admin will cut out your balls and leave them on your talk page. So, don't edit war dude.Lionel (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Then feel free to use your 1 RR and undo all of Bello's biased additions and changes. He basically did like 3 in one. Why don't those admins who are so willing to report violations do something about him or at least revert his edits back to the original? Fountainviewkid 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Bluehost Reference

Citation number 60 is also referencing bluehost.com: Cottrell, Raymond. "The 'Sanctuary Doctrine'--Asset or Liability? Part 4". http://30-254.bluehost.com/content/sanctuary-doctrineasset-or-liability-part-4. Retrieved 19 April 2011.

Donald, since you had success with the last one, do you have a more reliable source for this one too? Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That same documented was hosted by an archive of the Jesus Institute's (an organization Cottrell was involved in, and where he presented that speech) old website, that's what I had it referenced to when I reintroduced it. That is citation 59, and is the exact same thing. bW 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Then, is there any reason not to remove the bluehost link if it's the same text, albeit formatted better? Maybe replace it with an offline citation if Donald has it... Mojoworker (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Not that I can tell. I would have done so myself, but adding the reliable source was controversial enough. The archive was the original source, but it was removed at some point. I readded it in this edit, however, Fountainviewkid felt the need to revert that without explanation. Maybe FVK has an explanation for that edit and why we should use the bluehost page? bW 20:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I was reverting back to the wording and format that Donald used. I believe it should be in that manner, just as the phrasing should include our "progressive" label until we decide to remove it and should not have the word "noted". Fountainviewkid 22:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain your rationale for that? The text appears to be exactly the same for the two websites. Is there a reason that the Jesus Institute isn't a more reliable source than bluehost.com? Mojoworker (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the text of both references is the same, I removed the reference to bluehost.com. Mojoworker (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Regarding "conservative religious and social values" in the lead, the previous wording was "conservative religious and social practices" which is also the source wording. Practices is arguably more direct and precise, is there any particular reason we need to make a caricature of the source by not using its wording? And no, the two are not the same thing. bW 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be synthesized from what's in the reference and I see no previous discussion. Can anyone explain why it was changed? Mojoworker (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Progressive Adventist

I asked previously about whether James Walters saying that Cottrell "called for progress" and supported "progressive positions" is the same as saying Cotrell was a "Progressive Adventist", and was told something to the effect that I didn't understand the intricacies of Adventism. Since the term "Progressive Adventist" seems to be the crux of much of the current controversy, I'd like an explanation if possible so that I and other editors monitoring this page who are not familiar with this topic can understand the rationale for the terminology. Mojoworker (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I explained this term before, especially as all one needs to do is go to Progressive Adventism, but I'll try to explain further. Most of the information I say on here is quoted or sumarized from the article here at wiki on the topic which is decently sourced. This term came up to describe those who were considered somewhat to the "left" of the mainstream WITHIN the SDA church. While the SDA Church is very conservative there are some sections of it that are a bit more moderate. "Progressives typically disagree with one or more of the church's more uncommon, or "distinctive" beliefs such as the investigative judgment, the remnant, a future global Sunday-law, or a use of Ellen G. White's writings. They also tend to question some of the denomination's 28 fundamental beliefs" Specifically in their use of historical criticism (a method rejected by the SDA mainstream scholars of the church), their challenging of key doctrines of pillars of the SDA faith (i.e. The Sanctuary message of 1844, Ellen White's inspiration, young earth creationism, and often the authority of the General Conference (church administration) in interfering with disputes). Progressive Adventists generally came out of the conversations SDA's had with Evangelicals and defend the book Questions on Doctrine which created a controversy within the SDA church. They were influential in starting both Adventist Today and Spectrum magazine, which I will note Cottrell was very much involved in. With regards to the human nature of Christ, Progressive Adventists almost uniformly take a pre-lapsarian view arguing that Jesus Christ was not born with the same sinful tendencies as other humans. They were also the influence between the Adventist Society for Religious Studies and the Adventist Forum groups. They are often found in many of the denominations West coast institutions including LaSierra University, Pacific Union College, and Walla Walla University. Fountainviewkid 10:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The label "Progressive Adventist" is an invention of contemporary Adventists. Those who call themselves "Progressive" do so, it seems, to challenge the rest of the church to think for themselves rather than just follow the "party" line. They tend to insist that the Biblical logic of doctrinal views make sense to them. Those who believe that the church's views have been logically defined by the pioneers of Adventism often refer to themselves as Historic Adventists. The distinctions became obvious in the 1950's, though the term "Progressive" was not used back then. The book Questions on Doctrine (QOD) became a reference point. The views stated there seemed to be worded in a way to help other Christians accept Adventist as fellow Christians. Others considered such wording kind of a sellout to other Christian groups. The supporters of QOD and the opponents of QOD both reside in mainstream Adventism. But at the further end, on both sides, are people who strongly believe their view should be persuasive in Church discussions. Thus the self-identified Progressive Adventist and the self-identified Historic Adventist exist within the spectrum of Adventist thought. Regarding Cottrell, he lived in the age when QOD was first published. He also tried to make sense out of certain doctrines, such as the Investigative Judgment and, after his retirement, he addressed his concerns quite openly. All of this happened before the term "Progressive Adventist" had been in vogue. Would Cottrell be considered a "Progressive Adventist"? Probably so. But he never called himself that, nor was he called that during his career with the church. However, Walters is right when he says that Cottrell took "progressive positions." DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Good summary Donald. So why can't we re-insert the phrase "progressive positions"? Fountainviewkid 11:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC
Because among many circles it would be considered a "negative" WP:LABEL and he never identified as such. He may have had two or three progressive beliefs (there are 28 fundamental beliefs) while the rest of them were mainstream, last I checked, being 10% of something isn't something you generally focus on. bW 15:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean like Historic Adventist as a negative WP:LABEL? Cottrell may not have identified himself as such but we clearly have statements that he took "progressive positions" which are properly cited and sourced. And Progressives don't judge themselves based on 10% or any percent of the fundamental beliefs they challenge. No it's more of an umbrella term that relates more to "open-midedness" towards change and new ideas especially in terms of our doctrines. Challenging 3 of our core beliefs would in many cases be enough to get one considered progressive adventist, especially if he or she helped found Adventist Today, Spectrum, supported institutions such as LaSierra and lambasted locations such as Southern. Fountainviewkid 15:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC
So then say that 90% of his beliefs were mainstream. Starting institutions means nothing. I do find it amusing that you think know so much about progressive self-identification... I say mention his progressive beliefs on HIS page and remove all the extra information from this page (just call him a "noted Adventist scholar" in the vibe Donald previously did). bW 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll do that, when you stop vandalizing this article with all the attacks against Southern by mislabeling it. Ultra-orthodox? Fundamentalist Adventism? Historic Adventist? Why don't you just call it part of the extreme right wing? None of that of course is really true of Southern in relationship to the SDA church overall. The fact that Ted Wilson the GC President received 72% should show you where the "mainstream" of the church actually lies. Fountainviewkid 16:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC
A reliable source has been given for "ultra-orthodox" and "fundamentalist adventism." You can't on one hand use Adventist Today (not as reliable as Spectrum) to say Cottrell is progressive (when in fact it doesn't even say that, it says he took a few positions that would now be considered progressive) and then argue that Spectrum cannot be used to label Southern as ultra-orthodox/fundamentalist when it actually calls it that. Read the policy on WP:LABELS, the WP:RS actually calls Southern that in this case, they did not in Cottrell's case. Ted Wilson has nothing to do with anything, how many votes did he get again from North America/Europe/Japan/Australia? You know, the intellectual/reasonable areas? bW 16:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean it has to be in this article. You keep trying to defame Southern by adding all kinds of negative stereotypes about it, then charging that any Conservative Adventist doesn't get much support for the "reasonable" areas. Fountainviewkid 16:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC
Truly, that's all irrelevant for the article. So why should Cottrell be listed as progressive, although he never self-identified with that, but Southern not listed as conservative/historic/fundamentalist/ultra-orthodox when their president went on the record calling his school that? bW 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

When exactly did Bietz call Southern "historic Adventist"? or even "fundamentalist"? There's a difference between "conservative" and "ultra-orthodox" or "historic adventist". Fountainviewkid 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC

The previous president did, feel free to read the source next time rather than blindly reverting. bW 16:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While this is under discussion and in accordance with line 24 of this edit, I made the same change to progressive. Mojoworker (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum Blog or Magazine, Wikipedia policy

Hi BW and all,

BW you mentioned about Spectrum Magazine labelling Southern. What is the citation for the Spectrum article? I don't think it is necessary to compare Adventist Today to Spectrum. For Wikipedia purposes, both magazines are reliable sources. However, there is a new phenomenon and that is the connection of blogs to magazines and the inclusion of response posts to the end of articles. We are in a new era. Some of the info shared in the blog or blog-like webpages are solidly reliable but, as far as I can tell, not acceptable to wikipedia. So, I will repeat my question: What is the citation for the Spectrum article which labels Southern? Is it a magazine article or a blog? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The citation, as it was given in the article, is here. WP:NEWSBLOGs are reliable as long as they are subject to editorial controls, which both Spectrum and AToday's blogs are. As far as I can tell though, the citation is from Spectrum archives. bW 16:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is it?

Infobox says the campus is suburban while lead says rural? bW 20:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about that as well. I think anyone who has been to Southern would find the term "suburban" a bit of a stretch. There are suburb type streets but beyond those streets is not more urbana but woodlands. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for this?

Again, why are we calling someone progressive without a reliable source? Where is the source for saying "As one source in Progressive Adventism alleges..." I see no evidence that the author or publisher is progressive. bW 22:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the information as an unsourced allegation critical of a living person. Harvey Brenneise is the head research librarian (or was in 1996) at Andrews University, the Adventist Church's flagship University and seminary which is sponsored by the world church. If you can find a source calling him progressive, put it back in, but I seriously doubt it is to be found. (Note that I am assuming him to be alive since there is no source/obituary for his death, per the policy on living persons, he would not be over 115 years of age). bW 23:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stop misrepresenting sources.

Regarding the first portion of this edit: why is it relevant who did the reporting? As is clear from the title, "All the News that's fit to print...," this is reporting from a WP:RS, why does it matter who the author is? Furthermore, that misrepresents the source. He states in the source that this is what Southern was "positioning" itself as. He never once in the article stated that they had actually succeeded. The current version which states that he "called it" is simply inaccurate, it is akin to quoting a reporter who said that "Bush (or any other politician) positioned himself as X" as "reporter said that Bush is X." That's just not true. I'm currently debating undoing that as false claims about a living person... bW 04:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the false claim that he "called it" ultra-orthodox, etc. under the exception to 3RR/1RR for vios of WP:BLP. It is patently false to claim that he called it that as I explained above. bW 04:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that you should be relying on the WP:BLP get out here, it looks like a content dispute to me. Mtking (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MtKing. This is an issue for WP:BLPN. This invocation of WP:BLP is abusive and has been reported to the appropriate venue.Lionel (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and the warning on my talk page yesterday, Mtking. I somehow missed the notice this morning when I came on to check on a RSN comment. As you can see, my edits were had two main thrusts:

  1. I added context to "librarian," this was a novel edit and hence not subject to 1RR. I added, for the first time, that he was the head reference librarian at Andrews University, the Church's flagship school, meaning he was arguably the top reference librarian in Adventist academia. This was lost by simply saying "librarian." Also note that he was reporting as a statement of fact:
  2. The second part of the edit is what I ended up redoing as a BLP edit. Lionelt's edit falsely claimed that he "called it ultra-orthodox..." This is quite clearly false. He wrote this as News, it should be treated as such. He reported that Southern was positioning itself as the ultra-orthodox...defender of whatever. There is a significant difference. The first would falsely create the impression that this living person was pinioning and "bad mouthed" SAU in the process, when in fact, he was simply reporting what SAU was doing. There is a big difference, and hence I clarified it to remove this negative impression on a living person.

Good day, all. bW 02:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, this page has been brought to my attention about this issue by another editor. First, I will state that this page is on my watchlist, though it is there only for vandalism fighting reasons, and all can check it's edit history to confirm that I have never edited this page for content. With that said, I will weigh on on some of the points raised here and elsewhere related to this issue. I would like to think I have a decent knowledge of the policies that apply here (as (which you can see from my edit history) I spend the vast majority of my time on Wikipedia fighting vandalism and other bad editing practices).
  1. The 1RR (0RR, 2RR, 3RR) policies do have exceptions for certain types of behavior, but they are very specific. Certain ones do not apply to this situation, such as clear unambiguous vandalism or copyvio. The one that is trying to be applied is BLP violation. In this, the particular guideline is here[1]. Note it says: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."
  2. Though WP:BLP has specific guidelines that need to be treated as if they are rules, not all of them apply in the same fashion to companies, organizations, groups, etc. As a for instance, let's say "Acme labs defrauded it's customers", and that was citable via a reliable source. It may (or may not) be a BLP violation to say "John Doe of Acme Labs defrauded...", while the BLP guidelines do not apply to the first statement. In this case, the BLP exceptions come into play, namely Legal Persons and Groups. Thus, BelloWello's understanding of the proper application of BLP seems to be in error. If it does apply, it isn't for the reasons cited.
  3. The particular edit in question has already had the support of various other editors, and was deemed not a BLP violation (perhaps for the reasons I gave or others). On an article where consensus has been to keep/remove certain content, and the item(s) have already been discussed, one cannot simply pull up a rule exception for reverting to their preferred version. In this case, one could try to create a different consensus, by providing new, different and better reasoning than in previous attempts - or beat the dead horse some more, which usually doesn't result in anything different.
  4. 1RR/3RR/etc cannot be avoided by changing one's edit a bit to appear to be a non-revert when one's intent was to revert and sidestep the #RR rule.
"Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."[2]
And finally, please remember the section above on "Legal persons and groups". From here, I hope one can see the direction this needs to go in. My opinion is to revert/change to the version that had consensus, and if something new can be brought up to sway consensus, discuss it. Otherwise, take it to BLPN or RfC. RfC may be more appropriate.
If anyone is unclear about any of my comments or suggestions, or believes my interpretation of the guidelines and policies is in error, I would suggest going to BLPN, finding an uninvolved administrator, and asking them to review this situation. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 04:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: this page is now on my Watchlist... it may have been in the past for vandal fighting reasons (gets auto-added if I do a rollback or revert), but if so, I had already cleared it off my watchlist some time in the past. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You mention a version that had consensus. Where is this consensus? I added this for the first time yesterday. All we have is Lionelt (a conservative apologist who started the project) and Fountainviewkid (a disruptive editor who is now blocked for a week) wanting to say he "called it" something, which is not substantiated by the source. bW 05:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Mtking, Lionelt, Fountainviewkid (who was blocked for other reasons?). Yet you violated 1RR? And, more importantly (to the content issue), you did not apply valid rationale for the disputed change (not BLP violation), meaning you need to come up with valid rationale, or it's 3 for keeping it, and zero valid arguments for removing/changing it. Also, I'd suggest you spend as much (or more) time reading the rest of what I wrote above (if you haven't already). You should already have been blocked for 24 hours - worry about your behavior before you worry about Fountainviewkid's, and I guess be happy that I'm not report-happy over simple policy misunderstandings.
The better thing to do right now is to come up with valid rationale for the change and discuss that. I hope you head that direction instead. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm not sure Mtking took a position in the content dispute, but perhaps he did. My rationale for the change is simple: He did not "call" Southern anything. Rather, he reported that Southern was positioning itself as something. If you read the source, that should be clear? It was my understanding of WP:BLP that if something is falsely attributed to a living person, that could be viewed negatively, it should not be allowed in the article which is why I used the BLP exception on the top of this page. It probably was not worth the trouble, however, and I would not use the exception for that change again. (Although, I would hope that nobody would readd the incorrect wording...) bW 05:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Let's make this constructive. Does the article say:

  1. is positioning itself (or)
  2. positioned itself

Clearing that up (sorry, I don't have the time to read the whole thing) is the first step. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert, thank you for your comments on Bello's 1RR violation. I think his response says volumes about what it is like "working" with him. Welcome to Bellopedia. Lionel (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the tense doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that we do not falsely attribute it as someone's opinion that southern is x, rather than falsely stating that it was reported that southern is positioning/has positioned itself as. I'll leave the tense up to everyone else. bW 05:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If that is your belief, please define "positioned itself" as I suspect your definition varies from my own. If you are able to provide a valid definition that I can find is widely accepted, then I will concede your point and vote against using that term. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Robert, wanted to stop you before you got too involved in this. Bello is taking a break for a while. Just go ahead and make the edit.Lionel (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I just noted that. The edit history is such a mess, I would be cautiously against trying to find the decided upon text. If you can point me out to the proper revision, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, you or someone else can make the change once the 1RR time limit has expired. Regardless, I suspect I would propose simply using a quote, that way no one can claim any ambiguity... such as librarian said "positioning itself as..." - perhaps that would solve all concerns? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Time Limit for quotes/information as fact?

Just curious about the time limit for some of these quotes. Southern is now listed as "Adventist (Fundamentalist)", a distinction that I didn't know existed in Adventism, based on a quote about Southern positioning itself as such. However, it was based on a defunct publication from the 80s when Southern was under different leadership, both in the School of Religion and the university as a whole. I cant compare then and now and I know truth takes a back seat to verifiability. I was just wondering if there was any common sense approach to timeliness in quotes/information? A lot changes in 23+ years. Quixar (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have noted the (Fundamentalist) as well in the first section. It shouldn't be there, IMO. Adventists, even those who perhaps could be labelled such, don't like the Fundamentalist label. There are too many different kinds of Fundamentalists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
If it's kept, perhaps a time reference would be appropriate, e.g. "in the 1980s <name> described Southern as..." Btw great to see you back, Quixar! Lionel (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Where the f### did that come from?

Where is the source for "and known for taking a number of progressive positions" regarding Cottrell? The closest we have is a source that says he took a few progressive positions. He is known because he edited the Adventist Review, Bible Commentary, and Spectrum and helped found the Biblical Research Institute and Adventist Today, the fact that he took a few (2 or 3) progressive positions is really insignificant in the grand scheme of things here. So first off, the current "known for" is inaccurate, that is not what he is known for. Second, why are we noting that he took a very limited number of progressive positions? As has been noted, there are 28 fundamental beliefs, in addition to other position statements. He took what might now be considered progressive positions on a very limited number of them. Why is this notable to include when we attribute something to him? bW 04:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The source is Adventist Today and is reliable. Lionel (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

School of Music

Here are some links I've found that might be expanded for a section on the School of Music perhaps? I yield to those with more experience.

Music at Southern Adventist University Anton Heiller Memorial Organ Steps Along the Way Status as All-Steinway School

They have a full orchestra, symphony, choirs, etc that travel internationally. That's verifiable via calendar entries overseas but no articles that I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixar (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

McKee Foods

Hello,

I noticed the Wedgewood Trio section in the article, and I'd like to propose including a paragraph on another important factor in the school's history, McKee Foods. This is a major employer for the University that has enjoyed a close relationship. It's done equally if not more good for SAU as the trio, so it should be covered in this article. I noticed that there have been some disputes here, so I'd thought I'd solicit feedback on the following before I put it in the article.

Until 1956, the main industry students worked in was a furniture factory. In that year, the factory burned down leading to a temporary void in the local employment. When the factory was built, it was made into a baking plant, and leased to a company called McKee Baking, which was founded by a SAU alumni. Over the years this company, now known as McKee Foods has become a major employer in Hamilton County as well as one of the largest employers of SAU students. Currently, they enjoy a close relationship with the University, due to the large number of alumni who worked for McKee while attending SAU in addition to the substantial amount of McKee family members who are SAU alumni. (History Southern Adventist University. )

Thoughts?

Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Geoff. I think it is a good idea for the same reasons you have brought forward. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Great information Geoff, go ahead with your proposed updates and let us know if any questions or need any assistance Simbagraphix (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
There is an existing article about McKee Foods that can be linked from this article. Since this article is about the school and not about snack cakes, it would be reasonable to keep the discussion of McKee Foods brief -- focus on the relationship with the school, not on the company. --Orlady (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the connection of the McKee family members who are SAU alumni would be a important and notable addition, and if any pictures are available those could be added.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Splitting out Wedgwood Trio

As no claim has been established that the Wedgwood Trio has any more intimate a relationship to this institution than any of the members of Southern Adventist University#Notable alumni, I am proposing that the section on them be split out into a separate article (either on the group or on Adventism's relationship with popular music), and a link to this article be inserted into the alumni section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I object to this action as I believe notability has been established. Fountainviewkid 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My views have been presented earlier. We need counsel from some veteran editors. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Two points: (i) nobody has even attempted to distinguish how the Trio are different from any of the other alumni currently on the Notable Alumni list (rather than having their own section), (ii) "notability" is an argument for a separate article, not against it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Donald. We need counsel from some veteran editors before we make any changes on this issue.Fountainviewkid 18:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
(i) Non-responsive to either of the points I raised & (ii) I am a "veteran editor" (4 years, 32,000 edits if anybody's interested) -- so why are you avoiding engaging (either to accept it, or to refute it) my "counsel" so assiduously? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
We've all presented are views earlier. Lionel, Donald, and I are all in agreement that the Trio should stay. No need to rehash all points. Fountainviewkid 17:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
None of you have either (i) made any attempt to state why the Wedgwood Trio should have a section within this article, when other alumni don't (the only argument for their section has been that they are graduates of SMC, which would also apply to all other alumni -- making this argument a special pleading -- a logical fallacy) or (ii) explained why notability of the Trio means that they should not have an article of their own (as is normal Wikipedia practice for notable topics). So no, you have NOT "already engaged" me on these points. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Already engaged on those points. Agree with Donald. Fountainviewkid 17:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Where? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah okay. It appears one of my posts didn't actually get posted. Here's what I thought was already available. Sorry for the confusion. On one of the sources it was noted that while the Trio met at Newbold they really took off at SMC. One key fact was that only 2 of the 3 were originally from SMC (the other being from AUC). By the third one choosing to come to SMC, the trio was able to stay alive and achieve notability, otherwise it would have died. SMC played a role not only by having them graduate but also by being the place where all 3 of them originally began to be recognized. Also it was at SMC where they officially took their name. Additionally their first recording came at SMC through the help of one of the teachers. Their first sales occurred at SMC as well. Finally they got involved in evangelistic series through SMC when HMS Richards visited the school. This link has a lot of the details which connects SMC to the trio [[3]]. Fountainviewkid 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you added it, but then deleted it immediately with a later post. The problem with this argument is that the group would likewise have survived if they'd all returned to AUC, or all stayed at Newbold until they graduated, or all gone to Pacific Union College instead, or all decided to drop out of college to pursue their musical careers. SMC remains incidental to the group continuing (all that was needed is that they ended up in the same location somehow). This is a very weak argument for claiming a special relationship to the institution. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You did the same thing that Bello does; only reply to one portion of my argument. Remember I gave more reasons than just the fact that they all returned to SMC. I believe I listed at least 5 other reasons connecting the Trio with SMC. I would argue that if they had stayed at Newbold or gone to PUC or some other place then they should appear under that school's article. The fact they chose SMC is more than incidental as it then became identified with their music. Read the source. It makes it pretty clear that SMC was more than "incidental". Fountainviewkid 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies -- the first was the argument you'd already made in your deleted post, so it was the one I already had a counter for. I have seen no evidence to date that SMC was (i) "the place where all 3 of them originally began to be recognized" (and the PUR discussion of their European successes seems to argue otherwise) (ii) "where they officially took their name" (all that seems to have happened is that they changed their name due to another group in the area already using their old one) (iii) where "their first recording" was made (they seem to have recorded music in France) or (iv) where "their first sales occurred" (no indication from the IAMA piece where the sales occured, only when). I'm not sure what you mean by "evangelistic series". Reliable sources for any of this? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay good. Thanks for partially responding to most of my points. (i) I still don't buy your counter though and neither do the other editors. As for it being the place where they were originally recognized, the source I am using states "When summer ended, The Wedgwood Trio was nationally known in Adventist circles and hugely popular with young people" (this occurred while they were at SMC, before they had been known but not "nationally recognized"). (ii) The name is important as it symbolizes their mission. While the change was done due to another group already having it the source notes "decided the name had a classy ring to it and would suggest high quality folk music". (iii) According to the source "During the school year they had worked with Jim Hannum, a teacher at SMC, to record and produce their first record". I guess when I mean "recording" I am referring to record or today's version of album, even though you are right in that they were recorded in Europe for educational and evangelistic purposes. SMC was where they made their first record. The source describes the recording as occurring in conjunction with SMC faculty and (Donald could probably confirm this) appears to have been made at SMC (it was during the school year). (iv) Evangelistic series are religious meetings Adventists use to try and convert other people to become Adventist sort of like the Billy Graham crusades. HMS Richards was one of the most famous SDA evangelists. It was through evangelism that they also became well known and this occurred as the source notes "while visiting on campus". Additionally they had another record made "during their final semester at SMC". The reliable source has been already noted aboveFountainviewkid 20:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Additionally Southern University itself lays official claim to it's formation. Southern Columns, the official magazine of the university wrote in the fall of 1993 that "The original Wedgwood Trio was formed at Southern Missionary College in 1966" (back cover)[[4]]. Fountainviewkid 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As has been noted many, many times, weight in an article cannot be established by self-published sources. bW 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
We've been through this before Bello. Self-published sources are appropriate and can be used.Fountainviewkid 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we have been through this before. I don't understand why you're bringing it up again. Secondary sources are absolutely required to show weight, as has already been established. This is getting ridiculous. bW 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
And the weight has been shown. Fountainviewkid 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Arguments by assertion are widely considered logical fallacies. So, let's try again, self-published sources do not add to this discussion because they do not prove due weigh to Southern. bW 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not by "assertion" and is not a logical fallacy. This is not a self-published source. Instead it is an article which is "based in part on interviews conducted by Marilyn Thomsen with members of the Wedgwood Trio, which were then edited and placed in context by her in "Wedgwood: Their music, their journey", Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1996. That's not "self-published". Fountainviewkid 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Bello, you wrote "weight in an article cannot be established by self-published sources." I couldn't find that in WP:DUE. Where is it? Lionel (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Why should they stay? Bald statement of a position, without stating a reason, let alone attempting to engage the counterarguments, does not add much to the conversation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support splitting section out into a new article on the Trio and listing a link under Notable Alumni. Their association with Southern can be noted in THEIR article where it belongs, if it reliably sourced (I'm not speaking to sourcing). Perhaps a request for comment would be appropriate here... bW 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose splitting section. See previous discussion. Fountainviewkid 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As other editors have noted you use this mainly to try and force your view on the article. No this is not a vote, but when the majority of the editors working on this article are opposed to an action it should not occur unless action is taken by higher powers. Fountainviewkid 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think a standalone Wedgwood would survive AfD. Note that many of the people listed in the Alumni section have been sent to AfD by a certain editor.
  • Support I think Wedgewood Trio should survive AfD because of two points: First is musical notability #5: Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). Chapel Records qualifies for this criteria. Also the Trio is notable because it significantly affected Adventist musical culture, and affected Adventist culture in general to some degree. 78.26 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support That section is totally out of place here. Take it out! Tatababy (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to note that:
  1. Lionel's attempt to close this split proposal was both premature and partisan. The proposal has only been under discussion for 9-10 days. Where the outcome is not clear-cut an uninvolved admin should be sought to close it.
  2. In response to his claim "Noting that BelloWello is indef blocked, and Tatababy is a SPA/possible meatpuppet" I would point out that many of the rationales given for not-splitting have ranged from tenuous to complete non sequitors.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
We can keep going around and around on this if you wish. So far it seems we have 4 editors who support keeping Wedgwood as part of this article, and 3 that do not support. Of those 3 one is blocked indefinitely for some type of sockpuppetry, the other is a suspected/confessed meat-puppet, and the final one is the editor who would like to keep this open. Lionel felt it would be good to close this since we're unlikely to have anymore productive discussion. The facts from both sides have already been presented and the editors are deadlocked (or to be honest) actually in favor of keeping the article as it is. As for the rationales, it depends who's bias you believe. There's the Hrafn bias, and then there's the Lionel, Simba, Donald, FVK bias. Personally I'm for the latter. Fountainviewkid 4:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have requested an uninvolved admin to close this at WP:ANI. As has been previously noted, there does not seem to be any reason why this shouldn't be a stand-alone article with a see also link. bW 04:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it was never properly closed -- at least not by an uninvolved admin. Mojoworker (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until Splitting Wedgwood into its own article sounds reasonable. I suggest that a project page be started on Wedgwood. When it is ready to become a stand alone article, then I would be in favor of splitting and including a link to the the article on the Southern article. I am quite surprised at the attention the Southern Adventist University article is getting. Why does it get this attention when a similar school like Pacific Union College does not attract the same edit conflicts? Meanwhile, re: Wedgwood, a lot of work has gone into the Wedgwood paragraph. Finding citations take considerable time and effort. My concern is that we not lose the work done and information gained. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Adventist_University/Archive_6&oldid=1137195797"