Jump to content

Talk:Southern Adventist University/Archive 9

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

NOTNEWS in LEAD

The final sentence is as follows:

Enrollment continues to increase, going over the 3000 mark with 3,053 students in 2010, more than a 5.6 percent increase from fall 2009.

I would argue that although listing enrollment is legitimate, including differences between the two latest years is tantamount to a violation of NOTNEWS. Furthermore, the lead is supposed to summarize the article-this information is not summarizing anything in the article.

  • A violation of NOTNEWS? If possible, could you provide a quote showing how this WP policy governs enrollment figures. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are important. But WP is not mainly about rules. It is about good articles. Does the comparison of enrollment from one year to the next improve the article? In this case, I think it does. Wikipedia does not thrive on accusations of policy violation. Our difference in views can be resolved through consensus-based discussion. Accusing of violation of this rule or that rule is counter-productive. Speak to the issues. Seek to persuade. The policy and guidelines regarding what is okay information may be changed by the evolving consensus furthered by our discussion. WP is about consensus building not about rule violation, per se. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Enrollment numbers are very important to Adventist universities. When Southern passes the 3000 mark, that's news within the Adventist educational system. The lead is to provide a paragraph that the rest of the article expands upon. For Adventist universities growing enrollment is big news, especially in hard financial times. News is relative to the subject. Private schools depend on enrollment increases. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a completely unconvincing argument, Donald. However, it doesn't matter because I don't see a problem with the statement anyway. I can see how someone might think it's a bit newsy but I think it's actually some nice context. ElKevbo (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it also provide nice context if we talked about the specific change in enrollment between 1978 and 1979? Or maybe the specific change the year that it hit 1500? Point is, I think that including the current enrollment is entirely appropriate, I even think noting that 2010 was the first year that enrollment was over 3000 may be appropriate. Including the specific percentage change between two years? Not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.139.107 (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't have a problem if the percentage item were removed, however the current enrollment information is relevant and should remain in the article. Either way however this isn't that big of a deal, except for some IP's that really like to get the tiny details.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The latest enrollment figure can go in the infobox, the only thing notable about 2010 is having 3000 students, which can be noted without the actual figure or percentage. Either way, would someone please be so kind as to make the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.28.107 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think NOTNEWS applies. But if you feel so strongly about it, IP, why not make the edit yourself? – Lionel (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Student Life

The following is contained in Student Life:

Southern has more than 10 miles of hiking/mountain biking trails in the area, and students can visit many nearby parks and recreation areas such as the Toccoa/Ocoee River for Olympic whitewater rafting or Lookout Mountain for hang gliding. Lookout Mountain also has the caves of Ruby Falls, the rock formations of the Rock City tourist attraction, as well as the Lookout Mountain Incline Railway.

The following sources are provided:

Only the first source here mentions Southern. It does not mention Lookout Mountain, Ruby Halls, Rock City and the other attractions. The addition of the other information is OR. In addition, There isn't anything unique about 10 miles of trails on a rural campus-do we have to include that (which is the only portion of this that is actually sourced correctly, albeit to a SPS?

This link helps provide information on Southern and Lookout Mountain.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
So we can note that its close to Lookout Mountain, that still does not justify a long description, just a link to its article? I still don't see how it adds to the article, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.46.45 (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The information in the sources argues that there is something unique about the location of SAU in relationship to Lookout mountain. As with the hiking trails I know this is a SAU site but I still think it might be useful in explaining some of that information who's source is still being worked on.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
We have more information about the trails as well straight from here.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
All the sources you have provided are from SAU-we can safely dismiss their promotional claims about their institution being unique for its trails (I haven't actually seen that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.46.45 (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

These aren't. Here and Here are some information about the trails in reliable sources (local news and newspaper).--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And that is distinctive how? Those sources provide justification for a total of one sentence saying they have trails on campus-if that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.46.45 (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No these sources demonstrate that Southern has a unique system of trails which has a larger impact on the community. It isn't just every campus that has 10 miles of this kind of trail like Southern has. This is a significant and noteworthy point and the reason the information about "10 miles of trails" in currently in the article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

More information about the trail's significance.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This might also be of informational significance, especially considering it comes from the site of a national organization, the largest in it's field.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I want to express my gratitude to 75.243.46.45. Thanks to their ed req we now have enough independent sources to not only keep the trail content, but to add a few more sentences. Since the IP can't edit the article perhaps Fountain you would do us the honour and add the new content and sources. Did you know 75.243 if you register you can edit the article yourself. Do you see any reason why you wouldn't want to register? – Lionel (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding significance we don't have a policy for that. We do have WP:HTRIV. Info about hiking trails is relevant and useful to a reader and is exactly what one would expect to find in a section entitled "Student life." The hiking trails pass WP:HTRIV.– Lionel (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The existence of the trails seems to be reliably documented, but nothing that has been offered here supports the assertion that the hiking trails are unique. Their existence should be mentioned in the article, IMO, but there is no justification for elaboration about them. A further concern is that the subject section is largely an advertisement for recreational resources in the region that that are not in any way specific to the college. It displays the image File:Toccoa Canoe.png -- not on campus nor related to the school -- and it states:
...students can visit many nearby parks and recreation areas such as the Toccoa/Ocoee River for Olympic whitewater rafting or Lookout Mountain for hang gliding. Lookout Mountain also has the caves of Ruby Falls, the rock formations of the Rock City tourist attraction, as well as the Lookout Mountain Incline Railway.
None of those places is on campus nor related to the college. They can be generally regarded as "Chattanooga area outdoor attractions." The only way I can imagine them becoming relevant to this article would be IF there was reliably sourced information indicating that some other area tourist attractions are off-limits to students, but that these listed attractions are places students are explicitly authorized to visit.
I am deleting the image and the content about attractions unrelated to the school. --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed: The additional material does seem a bit promotional. I am sympathetic as Chattanooga is probably my favorite city in the nation but this is an encyclopedia article, not a promotional brochure. I would probably be amenable to a brief one-sentence mention of nearby locations but I think that would be a tough sell for other editors so it's unlikely that would be possible. ElKevbo (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
What happened to consensus? We "other" editors do not appreciate those who have single-handedly ignored the input of others and unilaterally removed citations. I am working on this article but certain editors aren't making this job easy.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is not limited to just those authors working on this one article. There are standards and norms that have been established not only across specific types of articles - including college and university articles - but also across all articles. The danger of limiting oneself to a specific article or a small group of articles is that it's easy to forget or never learn about the standards and practices that permeate the larger groups of articles and the rest of the encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Please tell that to Bink up above on Segregation. Yes I know consensus is not limited to just this one article. From what I have seen of similar articles, they provide like you said a brief bit of information about the local region if it is relevant to the students and is reliably sourced. Right now the article as it has been modified fits IMO this guideline.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid reverted Orlady claiming that a source was third-party. Calling Insight Magazine, which is owned/run by the same organization (Adventist Church) which runs Southern a third party source is dishonest.

I would kindly as the IP to refrain from violating WP:NPA with a charge as dishonest. Insight magazine is a separate entity from Southern Adventist University. There is no precedent for seeing Insight as "self-published" as Donald and I believe maybe even ElKevbo (or another editor) has noted. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it is not "self-published" does not make it "third party" or independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.203.54 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That my IP friend may or may not be true depending upon the definition. It can still be considered a credible source as long as it serves a purpose in line with the policy which it does.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why an Adventist publication wouldn't be sufficiently independent enough for non-controversial material, if it was controversial then I'd want to see an out-side party (non-Adventist publication) source. — raekyt 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Using an Adventist-owned source for an Adventist-owned entity's article seems to bring in a problem of promotional focus. It certainly does not prove the "uniqueness" of any particular aspect of a school, to have its owner's publication talking about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.28.107 (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This isn't exactly "the owner's publication". SAU is owned and operated by the Southern Union. Insight magazine is run by the Review & Herald Publishing Association.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
And both are an administrative arm of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, or in the case of the Review and Herald Publishing Association, a publishing arm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.28.107 (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
They both have associations, however they are separate entities. The SDA organizational structure is rather complex as you might now.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
For uncontroversial attractions in the area, this source is fine according to our policies. Although I don't necessarily agree that listing area attractions for the college falls within WP:SCOPE but I don't have a problem with the source for this information. — raekyt 02:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This business of promoting Lookout Mountain as if it were a part of SAU is absurd. Look at a map, or check Google Maps. SAU (in Collegedale) and Lookout Mountain are on opposite sides of Chattanooga. It's a 20 to 25-mile drive from Collegedale to Lookout Mountain (depending on where exactly you are going). The mention of Lookout Mountain in a fluffy little promotional blurb in an Adventist magazine does not create an alternative reality. --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not about "promoting" SAU as a part of Lookout Mountain. Rather it's about noting the various student activities that can occur and Lookout Mountain is a big part of that. It's not a "promotional blurb" but rather an informational piece about student life. I will also be adding news link sources to the trail information.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to make a damn strong case that local attractions are inexorably linked to "student life." So far you haven't made that case. We don't need to describe local attractions for articles about places unless it's explicitly necessary so it comes across as unnecessarily promotional here. ElKevbo (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
We have the article as well as the school's own statements about the attractions being linked to "student life". The school says it, an information article on the schools affirms it and so we put it in the article. This isn't "describing" location attractions. This is relating their relevance to the university.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah but *every* college is going to say the same thing about the local area. It's not useful information and it doesn't add anything to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not say that students can travel to the Chattanooga Airport and fly to Europe, if they so desire and have the money? It's undeniably true, but it's obviously irrelevant. However, it's almost as relevant as the stuff that FVK is trying to add. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Very irrelevant analogy. Show me a reliable source that says the above statements like the sources I have posted.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Just because someone once said something about something doesn't make it relevant for inclusion in wikipedia. Area attractions like this is IRRELEVANT for the article, plain and simple, even if you have sources and even if they're reliable. You have to show SIGNIFICANT reason for inclusion of this kind of information. — raekyt 04:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hence the news articles about the trails and information about the racing from the national site. Also we have at least 2 sources which make the connection between the various attractions and student life. I will however work on finding more sources like I did for the trails.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for at least allowing a portion to remain. I will work on finding sources for the white water section (and if possible the Lookout Mountain part). If I don't find any more Lookout Mountain sources I will probably join what is not yet the "consensus". In the meantime please at least allow some of that section to stay.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The hiking trails do seem interesting and closely tied to the college, particularly since they're on campus, so it seems entirely appropriate to mention them in the article. I don't have any problems with that whatsoever. (I do take issue with how you've just slapped some URLs in the section as references without trying to clean them up but that's a slightly different topic.) ElKevbo (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this explains it better. The thing with SAU is because it is smaller it doesn't have certain activities on campus the way other universities do. I did a decently thorough run through about student life at the major universities and noticed them discussion the various athletics (beyond competitive sports), social activities, etc. that take place on their campuses. At SAU much of the social action is off campus in the Chattanooga area, hence the connection between SAU student life and Chattanooga area landmarks. As for my editing style, yes there are problems but I'm working on learning how to do it correctly. It's not that easy though when collaboration doesn't occur and WP:BATTLEGROUND ensues.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for at least allowing a portion to remain. I will work on finding sources for the white water section (and if possible the Lookout Mountain part). If I don't find any more Lookout Mountain sources I will probably join what is not yet the "consensus". In the meantime please at least allow some of that section to stay.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Fountainviewkid, please stop edit warring to include a fluffy promotional article published by the Youth Department of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which owns Southern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.110.68 (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The Youth Department owns Southern? That's news to me. Please show me a reliable source that says such a thing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That is just disruptive. I'm sure you know that that is not what he meant, although it's possible that you didn't read it correctly "of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which owns Southern" clearly refers to the church. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The IP was making the implication that the owner of Southern and the owner of Insight Magazine are the same. Technically they are not, which was a fact I was merely trying to point out. The implication that I am merely trying to add a Self-published promotional is wrong and not helpful. I understand a discussion is occurring about my editing behaviors, but I would wish that certain editors such as those above not use this to try and get me blocked. I merely trying to continue this discussion so that we may reach consensus or at least some level of understanding. I know my results are imperfect but I'm honestly trying.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Sir, with all due respect, I work for the General Conference. Hell, I've done some editing from the office computer. I know the nuances of church government in the Adventist Church. The department/division/entity which owns/operates it may be different. That does NOT in any way change the fact that the ownership, at the end of the day, is the same. Doesn't matter what department or entity is through since the final owner is the Adventist Church. They are NOT independent of the subject.
I think the law may disagree with you. If asked who is the owner of SAU the answer would be "the Southern Union". If asked who is the owner of Insight magazine the answer would be "The Review and Herald Publishing Association". Saying the owner is the "Adventist church" is a great over simplification of a very complex system, which I believe you know.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Fountainviewkid, I think the point in all this is that Insight is not an impartial, independent source. The information found in Insight may be accurate as far as what's reported, but that magazine would never publish a news story showing Southern in a negative light. No matter that they are "owned" by different organizations. Please don't follow the same path as a (relatively) recently banned editor with which you had severe disagreements. The end result is the same, even when coming from different directions. 78.26 (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Making changes and deletions.

If you want to make changes and delete, we have already had many issues with edit wars and sock puppets and the like, and there are many editors who are very knowledgeable on the institution that have worked long and hard on this article to bring it to the level it is at. I suggest you let them know so they can come and look at your suggested changes before deleting. Thank You....Simbagraphix (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no ownership of articles, so we don't need to ask your permission to make improvements to the article. If something is against policy or poorly sourced, it will be removed. You're welcome to discuss it on the talk page, but there is no problem with someone boldly removing poorly sourced or problematic pufferry. — raekyt 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
But taking out verifiable facts suchs as "more than a 5.6 percent increase from fall 2009.[1] " in no way improves the article or is it against policy or 'problematic' and the sentence left makes no sense as has no context or time line. I will allow that you will be improving the sentence. Please show us your construct for the sentence or it will need to be restored or rewriting with the original facts.Simbagraphix (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
"I will allow" "Please show us", I suggest you read WP:OWN. — raekyt 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The 5.6% change is important information. How does it violate WP policy? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The 5.6% figure is a comparison of 2009 with 2010. How is that important enough for the lead section of a 119-year-old school? It is not, especially now that the 2011 year has started. The URL from the Chattanoogan was not signed or dated, so it failed WP:V. The bit about passing the 3000-mark is just fluff. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I will get more sources if you need as there are plenty for it, and for any student (or interested party) checking the institution, it is not 'fluff' as you infer, it is important and needs to be in article.Simbagraphix (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
A bit of context never hurt and is often quite useful.
Incidentally, your understanding of WP:V is at odds with the actual policy and how it's used in Wikipedia. The material was indeed verifiable; the link works and we can read that it says what was claimed. Verifiability does not mean that the document provides enough information for Wikipedia editors to independently confirm what is written in the document. Documents that provide that level of information are usually better but that kind of quality judgment is separate from WP:V. ElKevbo (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Right, the article was not quite a reliable secondary source rather than an unverifiable one. It appeared in the Chattanoogan unsigned but was apparently written as a press release by SAU student Carrie Francisco, making it a primary source. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree that it's unreliable, either, but I think we can both agree that the source is "not very good." :) ElKevbo (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Rather than worrying about the reliability of the source, it would be fine to cite SAU and say that "SAU reported enrollment of 3,053 in the fall semester of 2010-2011." That press release doesn't indicate that it was an all-time high, however. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is contesting the basic enrollment figures; they're widely available from a number of reliable sources. The (minor and rather silly) issue is whether additional context can be added in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to GA reviewers

Please check the page history. As of 08:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC), this article currently fails the stability criteria due to persistent edit warring. I recommend a quick fail if edit warring does not stop. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a poor nomination. I'd fail it myself if it weren't in bad taste to do so as an involved editor. ElKevbo (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In this context it sounds as a veiled threat, hinting to other editors to fail it while you are involved is never good. That was a wrong statement to put out there considering, a 'I agree' would have been better IMHO, need to be more careful.Simbagraphix (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, fuck off. It's not a threat and it's ridiculous for you to even make that accusation. ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Well now we can consider the source, as language shows a lot about the person...Simbagraphix (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
What does it say about a person when they quietly make substantial edits to their remarks after another person has replied? --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, derail over. Anyone wanting to continue can take it to my Talk page or theirs. ElKevbo (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Very funny, I am using my wifes computer, and its as slow as molasess, so if I misspell or leave out a word it takes a while to get back, so you are making assumptions as you did with the parks....Simbagraphix (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ban evasion

After reviewing the history here, it seems highly likely (per WP:DUCK) that most, if not all, the IP edit requests on this page are made by banned User:BelloWello. While many of the edit requests have a legitimate bases, I am concerned that a banned user is editing by proxy in violation of his ban. Based on the history, I also suspect that some of the motivation is also to goad User:Fountainviewkid. I'm not sure what the solution is - perhaps revert and deny any edit requests that quack like BelloWello?--Kubigula (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that only one unregistered user has shown an interest in this article. If it is BW, and I suspect it is, why not semi-protect the article so only registered users can take part in the editing of the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that only one unregistered user has shown an interest in this article. If it is BW, and I suspect it is, why not semi-protect the article so only registered users can take part in the editing of the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It is semi-protected, and has been for almost 2 months. The semi-protection will end in another month. If BelloWello once again starts editing the article, it will probably be semi-protected again for an even longer time. That's why Kubigula talked about "IP edit requests on this page" and not actual edits from IPs on the article. -- Atama頭 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Atama. Should the talk page be semi-protected, too? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Nah. We can always ignore or even revert the unregistered editor if necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is already semi-protected.
Although some of the points the unregistered editor makes are valid, Kubiqula's concerns are also valid, especially the suspicion about motivation including aggravating Fountainviewkid. I would be more comfortable if an SPI were filed but I could also be convinced otherwise given the circumstantial evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The SPI was filed several hours ago: link --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for recognizing one of my main concerns. I understand that many editors on here are upset over my behavior and I'm not denying that it was exactly great. I have responded so fiercely, as noted, largely due to my past history with Bello and my strong belief (based on evidence) that these IP's are in fact him. The fact that others seem to ignore this only led to my aggravation (and I think Bello's courage to make unlimited edit requests). I am not against improving the article by cutting useless info. and adding other items, but I want it to be done by consensus and not edit requests from a banned sock using IP's. I am trying to improve this article as well (even if there may be doubt in the minds of some) I just am not having the easiest time doing it. I would hope that when one looks at the history of me on here in relationship to the sources, they can see I was acting in good-faith. I am thankful to have been able to work with all of you regardless of the outcome of certain matters.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI closed

The SPI has closed with some range blocks on the IPs that were involved on this page. Unfortunately, SPIs can't make definitive connections between users and IP addresses, but it seems the WP:DUCK evidence and geographic proximity were enough for the range blocks to be applied. Unless serious issues are raised (BLP, copyvio etc), I'd suggest we ignore or revert further edit requests from quacking IPs.--Kubigula (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the talk page for three months. I'll extend the rangeblocks as well if there continues to be issues. Please feel free to seek me on my talk page if there are SPI or DUCK issues with WikiManOne/BelloWello. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Parks and nearby bike trails

I think what many editors dont know is that the scool has many excursions to the nearby parks or clubs which form for biking, and canoeing, hiking, which go on the weekends. So it is very much part of student life, and as such needs to be included. As you can see below, most of them are listed as nearby activities or have clubs or access provided by the school, and even promoted by church publications.

Activites- Chattanooga Choo Choo 1400 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 Downtown 423.266.4629 Ruby Falls 1720 S. Scenic Highway Chattanooga, TN 37409 Lookout Mountain Area 423.821.2544 Creative Discovery Museum 321 Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 Downtown 423.756.2738 Lookout Mountain Incline Railway 827 East Brow Road Lookout Mountain, TN 37350 Lookout Mountain Area 423.267.0968 Rock City 1400 Patten Road Lookout Mountain, GA 30750 Lookout Mountain Area 706.820.2531 https://www.southern.edu/parent/Pages/planavisit.aspx

"Which university is located only minutes from Lookout Mountain" http://www.insightmagazine.org/college/school.asp?college_id=sau


Outdoor Leadership at Southern Adventist University - (423) 236-2785 or 1-800-SOUTHERN, ext. 2785 Canoes, helmets, PFD's, canoe trailer, and other outdoor gear. "Harrison Bay Difficulty level: leisure, family Availability: year round Location: Chattanooga, TN >> Complete details Chattanooga Nature Center Difficulty level: leisure, family Availability: year round Location: Chattanooga, TN >> Complete details Chickamauga Lake Difficulty level: leisure, family Availability: year round Location: Chattanooga, TN >> Complete details Lookout Creek Difficulty level: leisure, family Availability: year round Location: Chattanooga, TN >> Complete detailsNorth Chickamauga Creek Difficulty level: ideal for beginners and families Availability: year round Location: Chattanooga, TN >> Complete details South Chickamauga Creek Difficulty level: family, leisure Availability: year round Location: Chattanooga, TN "

Bike trail review.. http://trails.mtbr.com/cat/united-states-trails/trails-tennessee/trail/biology-trail/prd_170272_4578crx.aspx

" this trail is located on a religious based campus who is sharing their trails with the public, please respect their beliefs, no alcohol on campus!" http://www.mtbtn.org/?p=882

" Biology Trails system on the campus of Southern Adventist University for use by the student body and the community. The intended use being that of trail running, hiking, and mountain biking." http://friendsofwhiteoakmountain.com/WOM/Welcome.html

and I am sure there is more, but this is what shows with just a cursory check....Simbagraphix (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Outdoor activities offered by the college can be discussed in the article, with proper sourcing, but that does not mean that the article is an appropriate place to describe all outdoor recreation opportunities that exist in southeastern Tennessee and northern Georgia. For example, the article could list wellness activities and tell about the rentals of outdoor equipment available to students, as described on the college website. Apparently there are clubs and college-sponsored activities that provide outdoor adventure trips, but I haven't been able to find anything available on the public web that describes what they do. (There are pages about programs that can be booked by outside groups, including outdoor leadership programs and outdoor education programs for teachers, but I can't find offerings for students.) --Orlady (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I'm rather sure that the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga is closer to Lookout Mountain than SAU. There are several other colleges in the area that may be closer -- and that could claim to be "minutes" away. --Orlady (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the existence of outdoor activity groups and excursions is in no way extraordinary or unusual. I think it would be okay to mention them but there would be issues of due weight if any substantial space were spent describing them unless there are unique or interesting reasons to do so. ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Most college articles do have some content about clubs and extracurricular activities (for example, they may list the number of clubs or tell about organizations that have existed for an unusually long time), but the SAU article currently does not. I've looked for some examples of how this topic is handled at other schools of similar size. Pomona College#Campus organizations seems like a good example of an article that treats this topic in a balanced fashion (although there is a severe lack of sourcing!). Some articles about smallish schools (such as Wesleyan University#Student groups and organizations and Skidmore College#Student life) have much more extensive treatment that drifts into the arena of WP:UNDUE, and should not be emulated. --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
But what we have here is on campus biking trails not just some park a few miles away, and the sourcing is just a click away as you can see, so I think this has to be looked at and put back in and see what can be verified and sourced. Dismissing out of hand without even looking to see or trying to find out, seems a bit hasty to say the least....Simbagraphix (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That part is in the article. Only the Lookout Mountain part is gone. Mojoworker (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1942 image

Two really nice additions Mathsci, thanks! What do you think about using the 1942 image full size and using that neat panoramic wrap-around template? – Lionel (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Dwight-Nelson.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dwight-Nelson.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly the pic was nominated by... an IP!!! – Lionel (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Southern Adventist University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: six found, 2 repaired, four tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    During Wright's administration, Southern Junior College became accredited as a four-year institution.. Could we have some explanation of "a four-year institution". The term is unfamiliar to me and likely others. *same a four-year college, as opposed to a two year "junior" college. changed. ) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    "a four-year college" still needs explanation. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Not done
    wikilinked  Done– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    The Graysville Seventh-day Adventist Church organized September 8, 1888. This could be better phrased, I don't think that church organized that or any other date!  Done DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Actually  Not done, No change has been made!
    fixed  Done – Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Still not done - why do you keep saying something has been addressed when it hasn't? (Since we AGF, there must be more complexity to the issue than is first obvious. More discussion on the matter seems appropriate. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
    The addition of "was" is better. It was a grammar issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    The Graysville Seventh-day Adventist Church organized September 8, 1888. makes no sense as it stands. Organized what? I don't think they organized the date? If you can't understand that this is poor grammar, then it is unlikely this article will achive GA status within the next few years. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Jezhotwells, you seem to be hostile to the development of this article. Impatient at the least. Could you please explain this apparent hostility. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    No hostility, just pointing areas where grammar and meaning unclear. If you don't want articles reviewed then don't submit for review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    As the superintendent for the church's work in the South, Kilgore repeatedly advocated for a school. "advocated the establishment of" - not "advocated for"  Done DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
     Done Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
     Done– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Kilgore invited George W. Colcord (1843–1902),[20] founder of Milton Academy (the forerunner of Walla Walla College), to come to Graysville and establish a school. Colcord arrived in 1891. Milton Academy and Walla Walla University should be wikilinked to provide context (Milton Academy of Massachusetts is not the same Academy. The Milton Academy in the article has no WP article.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, lets explain the location, importance, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)  Not done location was need to allow for student manual labor. Manual labor was considered part of the Adventist way of educating its youth. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
    You need to provide this context in the article, not in the review! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    It is provided in the quote, take another look. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    Trimmed so it's more readable; doesn't appear to need additional context--2nd opinion welcome.– Lionel (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    We don't need all that bolding in the first section of History, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting  Done DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    District #2 Superintendent, We don't use abbreviations in Wikipedia (What if that was how it was called? Do we still not use the abbreviation?  Done DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    No, see WP:Mos#Abbreviations Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Done?– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    ''The community was soon renamed, "Collegedale" and the school, "Southern Junior College". THe quiotes are unnecessary. Likewise The term "training" school had become associated with "reform" schools while at the same time the "junior college" designation had become a popular one.  Done by Donald
    In 1916, the schools' assets totaled $32,000; two years later, $113,000. How where these assets accrued?  Not done–DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
    In 1916, the schools' assets totaled $32,000; two years later, due to a the construction of needed buildings on campus, the school's assests totaled $113,000. Apart from being illiterate, there is no explanation here.
    If buildings are built, assets acrue. Do we need a statement which says that so and so donated so that the supplies could be purchased. This building program explains the increase in assets. What are you looking for? Apart from being illiterate??? Again this seems to be a hostile statement on the part of our reviewer. Aren't we on the same side here? What gives with the mean spirited review? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    We are looking for a clear explanation. If you put in a phrase such as "In 1916, the school's property holdings had a value of $32,000. ", it would help.
    Done? – Lionel (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    In 1918, three students were taking the post-high school classes; students totalled 175. Ungrammatical.  Done– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    ''The college built the girls' dorm first. "dormitory" not "dorm". Done – Lionel (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, this needs copy-editing to remove unnecessary quotes and abbreviations.  Done– Lionel (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Not very keen on the lists, most, with the exception of the list of principals, could be converted into prose.
     Done Assumed the alumni list is OK – Lionel (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    The lead could do with some slight expansion to more thoroughly provide an executive summary of the article as per WP:LEAD  Done– Lionel (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Four dead links, two tagged since September, two tagged in November.
    Looks Done – Lionel (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    Publisher details, titles and authors are missing from many cites. Consistency should apply.
    Sources appear to be WP:RS
    Statements are adequately cited, but the dead links need addressing.  Done (not by me) – Lionel (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    No evidence of WP:OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Broad enough, without trivia
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable, the semi-protection appears to have stopped the edit-warring.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Licensed, suitable non FUR rationale and captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    It appears that the nominators are incapable of understanding the GA criteria or understanding comments on the prose or lack of meanings in it. Frequently points are claimed to have been addressed when in fact they have not. Corrections have been made sloppily without any attention to detail. Consequently I am failing this nomination now. Find someone to copy-edit who can write good plain English and when that is done take it to peer review before renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Following an email from one of the nominators, I have re-instated the review. I will look at it again on Friday evening and make a decision then. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    That's great! Thanks Jezhotwells. – Lionel (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, the article is much improved, happy to list. In future, please consider getting an independent copy-editor and taking to peer review before nominating for GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the excellent advice, and your patience Jez. I think it has been a learning experience for Donald Ken and myself.– Lionel (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Urgent--Citations

Let's fix the citations: "Publisher details, titles and authors are missing from many cites. Consistency should apply." We need to use the {{cite}} template with necessary parameters for all citations.– Lionel (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, "consistency" means the way the cites appear on the article page, not whether they were all done using "cite templates". There's more than one way to skin a cat. --Kenatipo speak! 03:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I just thought using cite would be easier.– Lionel (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm like Donald -- I'm not experienced enough with them to use them efficiently, so, each one would take me a long time! --Kenatipo speak! 15:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Consistency in citations: Retrieved date format

We're using 2 styles: November 10, 2011 and 2011-11-10. Let's vote on which one to use, then I will volunteer to make them all the same style. --Kenatipo speak! 16:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

My preference is 2011-11-10 but I don't really care: as long as it's consistent. – Lionel (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved dates in Bibliography

Biblio sections don't usually have "Retrieved dates". They look ugly. Can I remove them? --Kenatipo speak! 16:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • That is fine with me. However, the Biblio section is not set up with HarvNb. I am not very proficient with HarvNb though I like the style. I think we should, perhaps, remove the Biblio section and deal with 'cite' formats. This is going to take several hours either way. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's keep the Biblio section but rename it "Sources" and delete the extraneous info, like page numbers and retrieved dates. --Kenatipo speak! 20:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kenatipo is right on target. – Lionel (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Have changed section name to Sources and removed retrieved dates. Not sure how to proceed with page numbers. Are we talking about the number of total pages in the work or the pages which provide specific documentation? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography and HarvNb vs Cite Book, Journal, Web, etc

Hi,

I have standardized some citations to Cite Book, Journal, Web etc. Some of the citations not in my format style seem close enough to be accepted as such (any thoughts?). In my opinion, the big difference is with the Bibliography and the not in use HarvNb coexisting with the Cite format. Any thoughts? Do the two styles pose a problem? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells is looking for "Publisher details, titles and authors are missing." The citations should be consistent, but let's not worry about it too much. Afterall, we have to save something for the FAC!!!!! Hahahah! – Lionel (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.southern.edu/marketing/Documents/Factor/Factor_oct_2010.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Adventist_University/Archive_9&oldid=1208152812"