Talk:Wittenberg University/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wittenberg University. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Secret societies

The Knights "wkw", are just as active as the village.... and still they get ignored... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.227.81.49 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yawn, quit changing the secret society's entry. It's an accurate, factual depiction of secret societies on wittenberg campus. If any of it is false, feel free to edit it properly, but removing it entirely seems like an obvious act of some sore secret society members. Stating that they walk around with obvious regalia drawing attention to themselves is true in every sense of the word.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.223.83.13 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

What upsets me is that there are secret society that have been removed even though their membership is much higher than most of the ones listed. It's a childish and ridiculous attempt to stifle existing groups like the alchemist and the numbers. And yes they exist, I had two alchemist as neighbours and I have at least ten numbers in my new classes this semester! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.227.81.30 (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Secret Section

Does this section accurately describe facts about the school? Some of these entries seem like fun trivia and could be recategorized or re-written; but if they are presented as fact, they should be edited out. Please see WP:NOTE for the notability policy at Wikipedia before adding nonsensical trivia. Nimur 02:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what section you are refering to, but I'll assume the secret society section. It's an accurate fact about the school, leave it as is, or add to it if you think it's necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.255.168.203 (talk • contribs) .

I have removed the section, after it was repeatedly vandalised and filled with nonsense on 30 August 2006. See this edit for details. Relevant, correct information should be added back in by someone knowledgeable about the school. Nimur 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have secret soceities. I always wondered what was with the late-night chanting that drifted up to my dorm room window, and I never actually knew it was a secret society until I came to look at Witt's page on Wikipedia. Interesting. I wish they would be a little quieter though. Morhange 04:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell is the organization?!? I'm not saying they don't exist I just wanna know a little about them. What do they wear? What they do?

I am (was) a member of the organization, but we are no longer active. We were active last year, but we disbanded last fall. Morhange (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

College?

Was it formerly called Wittenberg College? Badagnani 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Davis a Wittenberg Alum?

Al Davis' bio on Wikipedia mentions nothing about his having attended Wittenberg University. He's listed as a university alum, though. If the existing bio is known to be correct, then Mr. Davis should be removed from the list of alumni. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.65.70.109 (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Al Davis as an alum...again

It seems that Mr. Davis attended both Wittenberg College and Syracuse University. (http://www.raiders.com/History/Default.aspx?id=860) He apparently completed his postsecondary studies at Syracuse in 1950, making him an alumnus of that institution, not of Wittenberg.

The distinction between a college and a university is not well defined in the U.S. Wittenberg was founded as a college, but has alternately been known as Wittenberg College and Wittenberg University since its establishment. A rule of thumb, but not a formal distinction, is that a College awards only Bachelor's degrees while a University awards Masters and/or Ph.D. degrees to students who have previously completed a Bachelor's degree.

See :

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_college_and_a_university http://apps.carleton.edu/intl/looking/collegevsuniv/

Secret societies (July 2007)

This material has been removed more than once, and I have recently removed this shorter paragraph. This may very well be true, but equally it sounds pretty ridiculous to me as an outsider, and I will continue to support its removal until a reliable source is found for the material. — mholland (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reposted correct information about secret societies and warned Mholland to quit vandalizing Wittenberg University Page, this is correct information about the University!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.227.128.47 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Secret societies (September 2007)

This material is still unreferenced, and it still looks like tosh to me. Editors keep fiddling about with it in a very POV manner [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], and unless sources are supplied for this paragraph (pick any version of the paragraph you like, from the diffs above), I will remove it again as an obvious case of Schoolcruft. Remember, the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The argument that there can be no sources for "secret" organisations holds no water with me: see, e.g. Quill and Dagger and Skull and Bones. Knights Templar is a featured article: not only were they secret, but they've been dead for hundreds of years. — mholland (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mholland, thank you once again for interfering in a matter that does not apply to you. The most recent revision is correct. Please stop interfering with a university page that you have never visited or have no idea about. I find it funny that you have created a word, "Schoolcruft"??? that is one of the most reidiculous things i have heard in a long time. Once again, please stop vandalizing this page.

Thank youl—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.227.2.89 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for any offense caused here. Whether I am personally familiar with Wittenberg is not the issue: my own experience neither qualifies nor disqualifies me from editing (this is a founding principle of Wikipedia). As of now, of the last fifty edits to this article, roughly two thirds have been the addition or removal of material from the secret societies paragraph. User 136.227.2.89, you removed some of this yourself, with the edit summary "stop adding fake secret societies that dont exist. the ones that are currently listed are the only active ones". How is anyone unfamiliar with Wittenberg supposed to be able to tell if your version is correct? Please review WP:V. Please also consider registering an account for your contributions to Wikipedia: there are several benefits in doing so. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to the disagreement over how much of the secret societies material is true, this article has been semi-protected. I propose that the paragraph in question be reduced to list only verifiable facts. So far, the following sources have been offered: a "Hazing blog" and an article from Wittenberg Magazine online. I would like to replace the current text with the the following:

Wittenberg is home to several secret societies, including "the Wizards",[16] and the "the Shifters", who reportedly enlisted President Emeritus William A. Kinnison into membership in 1989 by presenting him with paperclips at commencement.[17]

I would be happy to see more material added, but only if it comes with a source. Thoughts? — mholland (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a few comments on my talk page, some more helpful, some less so. Please remember to cite sources for material you add: reverting to the version of your choice without something to back it up is unhelpful. — mholland (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Knights are active. What about all the "wkw" written around campus last week? what makes you think they aren't active? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realwitt (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

and whats all this bullshit about the village. i am not going to lie. i participate in "unsanctioned organization" pretty fucking often and let me tell you, some fucking freshman organization isn't real. so don't do writing bullshit about your bullshit duct tape badges. nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.227.162.81 (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Davis May 2008

I have re added Al Davis as a Wittenberg Alumni. Although Al Davis did not actually gradauate from Wittenberg, after a discussion with University Alumni office staff, it was determined that Al Davis attended Wittenberg for long enough to be considered a Wittenberg Alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandc04 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio revert

I just reverted about nine edits due to copyright violations, so I thought that I should post here to explain.

The "Weaver Observatory" section that was added was copied from [18].
The "WUSO Radio Station" section was heavily copied from [19]. All of that section didn't appear to be copied, mainly the phrase "If you aren't at a radio, or in the Springfield area, tune in to WUSO, by listening at wuso.org!"", which is inappropriate anyway.
The "The Benham-Pence Student Center" section was copied from [20].
The "Dining Restaurants on campus" section was originally copied from [21]. This section doesn't seem to me to be particularly notable anyway.

After looking back at the edits to make this post, I also saw that there were some changes in figures that probably shouldn't have been reverted although they were unsourced. I'll see if I can find sources for these figures and reincorporate them if found. I just wanted to post here and explain why in case some of the sections should be reinserted, of course not copied straight back in :) I would also like to point out to anyone who reinserts this to please stop copy and pasting copyrighted text and also to please adhere to WP:NPOV. Thanks. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 07:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Update) I reverted the copyvio again. I have also changed the figures that I mentioned before. I found a source for them and complied with that. If there's a better source though, feel free to update it :) Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 07:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Another removal

Well, I removed more stuff. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines. All universities that I have seen have restaurants. Therefore, it is common and not notable. Unless there is something particularly unique, it is not encyclopedic. The Inn and Bed and Breakfast also doesn't appear notable. The game room seems the same. Going so far as to tell that they have Wii Sports and Dance Dance Revolution... I think some people inserting all of this should take a look at What Wikipedia is Not. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising venue. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 20:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...

As much as I love being shown the courtesy of being reverted with no explanation, why am wrong to think that telling "We have ski ball, Rock Band, and Pac Man" belongs? How is this of any encyclopedic value at all? This is something that is likely to be found in a brochure, not here. Who not planning on going to this university is going to give a damn about that? Plus, I just found that the blurb is copied directly from the source. Quite a shock, I will remove again as a copyvio. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez, I GO to this school and the state of this article is ridiculous and self-promoting. Morhange (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it appears that the WP:SPAs may have quit reinserting what all the game room has (or has just taken a break). Some of the stuff that they are adding doesn't even pretend to be WP:NPOV. I'm fairly concerned about the "Center for Civic and Urban Engagement" and "Springfield Peace Center" sections. While these probably do merit inclusion, they are written purely promotional. The "Center for Civic and Urban Engagement" could be rewritten using this source to make it more acceptable. The "Springfield Peace Center" could possibly be rewritten using this source. I would fix this myself right now, but I know inevitably, I'll simply be reverted with no discussion, so I'd like to get somewhat of a consensus before making any changes (I have no desire to edit war).

The bits about the bed & breakfast and restaurants doesn't really seem like they belong in the article to me for reasons that I state in the section above, but I'll admit, I'm not nearly as concerned about these as the other things that I have mentioned. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We have Starbucks!!

How is having a Starbucks notable at all? I live in the middle of nowhere, and I don't have to go far for a Starbucks. Also, students can "hang out at world famous Mike & Rosey's deli and Our Hero's Subs." World famous is POV at best, especially considering Mike & Rosey's deli gets a whopping 3 Ghits and Our Hero's Subs gets the same Ghits, but the last one is counting this article. How is any of this notable at all? Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it a problem at all. Many wikipedia pages have that. I am assuming the user is trying to just talk about what the university is famous for. Wikipedia apparently is very reliable in student's decisions on going to college. So, i wouldn't worry about it. (Windowsforgood (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

If it's famous for having a Starbucks, then they should be worried about more things than a Wikipedia article... I am worried about the amazing number of accounts who sign up simply to include blatant advertising to this article. Is the fact that "Wikipedia apparently is very reliable in student's decisions on going to college" the reason this bullshit keeps getting added to the article? That statement was pretty telling. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Windowsforgood (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

I wouldn't worry about it. Just leave it as it is. I am concerned about the grammar written, but I think the information is well. Like I said you cannot go after this article when there are many articles on wikipedia that do the same.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes I can. We're talking about this article, not the others. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag for probably apparent reasons. It's obvious that this article is being used as an advertising medium. Every time I try to make it more neutral, I either get reverted or more POV simply gets added back in. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I took it off, that's not advertising, they are stating what is on campus and what is near campus. Many wikipedia pages for universities have this. I wouldn't target this school. I think we should take a look if the grammar is alright and sourced fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windowsforgood (talk • contribs) 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated it. Read up a few topics. It is obvious what this article is being used for. Have you seem half of the stuff that I have reverted? Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

I've tried to go through and remove a lot of the WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. I rewrote one section because it was a copyvio, believe it or not. I also tried to remove a lot of the POV. I know a lot still remains, but I think it's a start. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 09:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

How long is Wittenberg's site going to be under semi-protection. I was wondering if anyone can add any pictures? Apparition11 would you be able to do that? thanks.

What images are you wanting to add? Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 13:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Would you be able to add these pictures? http://www.slamservices.com/witt-ss.jpg- this one can go for Athletics http://www.noram.no/images/gallery/lowres/1160989366studentfrisbee.jpg- this one can go anywhere as needed. http://www.cuyastro.org/images/weaver-observatory.jpg- this one can go under the observatory section, http://farm1.static.flickr.com/85/235232504_bfe865fb9d.jpg?v=0- anywhere on the page, http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2605940974_e985899e13.jpg?v=0- under history section, http://www.unigo.com/wittenberg_university/photos/29478/- under any section.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I can't. I'm not extremely familiar with the intricacies of image policies, but those images look like non-free images that do not fall under our fair use guidelines. You may want to look at our image use policy to become more familiar. As you should be well aware, this article has quite a history of copyright violations... Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)) It says I cannot edit though... unsure why and I'd like to edit if possible?

Yes, the article is semi-protected in order to stop socks from adding copyvios and promotional content to the article. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

So when can i add information?

The article is semi-protected until April 17. You are free to suggest any additions or edits here until then. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 02:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) We'll I was wondering if you'd be able to find some pictures on this university? I looked at the article and you did some editing. It seems like someone was trying to advertise. Someone wrote that the university had an Inn? I think i laughed when i saw that. There was one, but I believe it's not affiliated with the university and I also heard they are closed now.

We need free images in order to place them in the article. If you have taken some pictures and wish to release them, then you can upload them and use them; however, we are not able to use copyrighted images. Also, we are not able to use images from other websites. Images have to be loaded on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. This is a common misunderstanding. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 02:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

So what I'm understanding-- is I have to take the picture in order for it to be in the article? Where can I find free images that are not copy righted? Can you also please let people edit the article. I don't think it's fair that you aren't allowing people just because their is copyright issues. Please?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samual890 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking them yourself guarantees that you won't run into any copyright issues (assuming that you do release it). You can also find some free image resources here, but I don't know how much luck you'll have. I'm not the best person to talk to about image policies though; I try to stay away from them. I can't unprotect the article. It's protected because of the many socks and WP:SPAs who have abused the article, which ironically you share some of the same characteristics of. If you want to seek unprotection, you should first ask the protecting admin, Dougweller. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 03:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you help find some pictures? It seems like you've done a lot of editing! That would be awesome if you could!! I couldn't find any where you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samual890 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The only place that I would know to look would be where I mentioned, so if none of those links helped, I wouldn't be of any help. Again, I try to stay away from that part of editing. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 03:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can-- ask some of your colleagues here on Wikipedia to find some "free" pictures of Wittenberg and please upload them.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samual890 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You are free to request an image at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. You can also find a nice guide to finding free images at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 04:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't know how to use Wikipedia so well. Could you really help me out, dude. The pictures I wanted, is what I sent to you earlier. Can you find away to get the copyright information and add it in. PLEASE DUDE! I know nothing about computers.

I don't mess with that stuff. If you want those images, you would need to find out who owns the copyright and ask them to release the images. I have no desire to do this and would not ask anyone to do it for me. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 04:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

All of those pictures are actually the copyright of Wittenberg University. As far as releasing it- since it is all over the internet it already has been released. Now, all I'm asking is you to please insert the pictures.

If they are the copyright of Wittenberg, then they are copyrighted. On the internet does not mean that it is in the public domain. I am not committing a copyvio. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 04:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Add) Ironically, the reason that you want the article unprotected, is so you can do the exact same thing that got it protected in the first place, inserting Copyvios. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 04:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's untrue. But I get what you are trying to say. I just want to find away to get pictures on there which is safe and legal. But if it's illegal, than I understand.

What's untrue? Wikipedia's copyright rules are stricter than most laws, so just because it's legal does not mean that we can do it here. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 11:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Can you add this information? Wittenberg has a geology museum. Can you place that under the science center facilities information? http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/geol/resources/facilities.html

Unprotected now, so you can. It would be great if any new content came from third party sources though. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 11:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm, I'm having trouble finding third party sources but this information is so notable of the university. Can I just use the information from the website given?(Samual890 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

15 of the 28 sources used in this article are primary sources. Per WP:SPS, the article should not be primarily based on first party sources. This is the major reason that the article often reads like a press release as opposed to an encyclopedia article. Also from that policy, if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. If this information is truly notable, then a third party source should be available. It seems to me that this article really doesn't need any more content from first party sources. In fact, I think the opposite should be done, some of the content that is only sourced (or able to be sourced) through first party sources should be removed. I won't do this myself because I have admittedly became extremely frustrated over this article, and I'm afraid that I'd be tempted to remove too much. I would be interested to hear some comments from uninvolved parties though. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go a head and add the information about the Geology museum. If there are problems, we'll address them, please write here.

(Samual890 (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

thanks

Umm, I just listed problems. Why not address them first? You say "we'll address them", yet, you intend to ignore them and add it anyway... Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(After many "This wiki has a problem" messages) I've placed a primary sources tag because, as of now, 19 of 31 sources used are straight from the university website. Due to the large usage of primary sources, a lot of info is probably non-notable and also gives the article an un-encyclopedic tone. If history teaches us anything, the tag will probably be removed fairly quickly with little to no explanation, but we'll see... Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 23:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

My explanation: I don't believe this should be tagged for not using a third party source. I think since it is cited it shouldn't be an issue, period. I believe a university having 30,000 geology species items is VERY notable for such a small school. So if anyone finds more sources, please insert them, but for now it is notable and we're going to leave it at that so we don't get into edit wars.

You said, "So if anyone finds more sources, please insert them." The tag is placed there so people know to look for sources. The reason we have that tag is because we do not rely on first party sources. Just because you believe that we should ignore policy and rely on first party sources is not a reason that you should remove the tag. And what is this statement: "we're going to leave it at that so we don't get into edit wars." You do not have final say the same as I don't. You do not WP:OWN the article and have no power to say that this is the version we go with. I have not removed a lot of stuff in order to avoid edit wars. I am not going to leave it at that because you tell me, too. You have not addressed the reason the tag was placed. Discuss it or fix, don't just remove it. We can seek out dispute resolution about this, but please at least make some kind of valid argument for your side. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 12:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparition11, you have my full support for cutting the article back to a responsible encyclopedic measure in any way you see fit. Samual890, evidently just another sock of the same user we dealt with earlier, can be blocked again any time he acts up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fut.Perf. I was a little worried that I may have been getting out of line because of the lack of any responses (though I don't blame anyone for not wanting to jump in). Yeah, the only reason that I hadn't already reopened the SPI was because there was actual discussion happening, but I'm afraid that's not going very far. I have to go to work now, but I'll try to see what I can do with the article when I get home. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have laid out all of the sections that rely primarily on primary sources in my sandbox in order to organize what needs to be done. Anyone is welcome to make comments/edits there if you want. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I cut the sections about Koch Hall and Krieg Hall down to one sentence a piece and placed it under Academics. [22] The only third party sources that I could find for these just mentioned them in passing, ie, "the concert will be held at..." or "students will meet at...". Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have an idea... what if we moved all of the buildings into one category? And then we re-write it. We'll you know Ohio State says they have an oval... why can't we say we have a hallow which is the same thing? However the sections on Weaver chapel keep that information along with Recitational Hall. Those are two notable things. Can you put the rest into it's own category? Later tonight I can work on it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samual890 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources. I will be happy to insert a mention of this stuff, but devoting more than a sentence to the vast majority of it is unnecessary. We are not here to explain where students can play frisbee and to explain the windows in the chapel. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I was also just looking through the article-- no where did I copy right???? I have no idea what you are talking about. That's just untrue... I'm going to revert it and I will work on this article later to put into one category called buildings... we can include Krieg and Koch there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samual890 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't copyright this time, you did during this edit. If you really want to deny it, I will be happy to provide the links later. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am having trouble finding the links for Copyvios at the moment. I will look more after while, and if I'm unable to find them, I will apologize. I was getting hits earlier, I guess I may have been looking at the wrong diff. Regardless, it was trivial information and not what should be included in an encyclopedia. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I don't have to apologize this time, except for my statement about this version not being copyvio. I found them. First section you inserted was from here. Krieg hall section was from here. Koch hall from here. One sentence from the library section was copied from here. The Recitation hall was heavily copied from here. Weaver chapel was heavily copied from here. Out of the two sentences about Zimmerman, one was copied straight from here. Of course, going to revert. Funny part is most of the parts that you "reworded" were not backed up by the sources. I'm also curious when you are planning on replying to my post a couple of sections down. I'm sure that you'll reply instead of just reinserting (especially being COPYVIOs), right? And, actually reply instead of just saying "it isn't fair, it's notable." Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 04:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article, Samuel890 assures me he will do nothing that will be a copyright violation. If edit warring resumes I will take appropriate action. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest addition

[23] Besides reinserting what what was discussed above as not being notable, it also included much more unsourced or poorly sourced content. It went as far as to tell where students can go to play frisbee... Some of the stuff that gets added to this article is ridiculous. If a reliable source can be found about Krieg hall, Koch hall, Thomas Library, Recitation hall, Weaver Chapel, Blair hall, Chakeres Theatre, Hollenbeck hall, or Parks and green space, then I would be glad to implement them into the article myself. The Library most likely does deserve a mention, but a third party source would be much better. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(Andrewkols (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

OK, why is Apparation11 keep removing stuff that is useful information. The user that added information about Weaver Chapel- why was that removed? Why was information taken off talked about the university's athletic facilities? Why was Recitation Hall information taken off? I think that was a great idea to put the Academic buildings into one section. Why can't do do that? Also someone removed how far Wittenberg is from Dayton/Columbus, that gives the reader information on where the school is when it comes to geography. Okay, this is really not good whoever keeps removing this information, please leave it. Though, I do agree we need third party sources, my suggestion is, and I'm going to go a head and revert somethings is we leave it and if people can find information on the academic buildings great!!

thanks and I'll go a head and revert it. If there is opposition to that, please begin some debate on her. But I agree with Samuel890.

Please discuss rather than removing information on the page. I tried to edit and find some sources. Any other sources or any way of making the writing seem for encyclopedic would be appreciated as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkols (talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You know very well why I've removed the information. You also did what I said that you'd do here and immediately restored the edits, except, for some reason, I thought that you might actually wait the block out this time after seeing that sockpuppets didn't work last time (I was wrong about that). I've given my reasons time and time again. The only things that you have said are all along the lines of "Don't worry about it" or "Let's put it in there and discuss it later" (which never happens). Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 07:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, can we please add something now??? I will be more careful I promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilover567 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about instead of being "more careful" with this account, that you stick to one account. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 12:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This reads like a brochure advertising the university

Far too much detail (we don't need all the degrees it offers, the fact it has a Domino's, etc) which shouldn't be in the article and almost all of which can be obtained from the website. Comments like 'cutting edge' which are clearly advertising.

And far too little 3rd party sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One of Wittenbergs Lutheran Alumni is being marked for deletion - Please weigh in now!

This Wittenburg University Lutheran produced the most exhaustive single work of pre-millennial thought EVER published. It is still being published after a hundred years. Hope you can help!!!

The three books written by Peters are considered to be the most in depth history on the subject. An entire lifetime was spent creating the 10,000 pages of notes and of course his 3 volumes original published by Funk & Wagnalls.

Short History of the man: http://www.theocratickingdom.com/MrPeters/History.html

Google info on the man: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Nathaniel+Henry+Peters&start=10&sa=N

Google info about his books: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=The+Theocratic+Kingdom&aq=f&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Please edit the article or weigh in here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Nathaniel_Henry_Peters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies section

I was considering starting such a section after an incidence of hate speech on campus was reported to local media, with a similar, well-circulated incident happening 12 years prior. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/black-student-at-witt-reports-whites-only-sign-taped-to-door-1059770.html I don't find this to be indicative of the student body as a whole, but do find it to be noteworthy.--Chimino (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Lutheran affiliation in introduction

I have removed the mention of the Lutheran affiliation from the introduction. This religious affiliation, while certainly present, isn't significant enough to warrant such an immediate mention. The topic is covered quite adequately in the body of the article. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.185.67 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Censure by American Philosophical Association

There are questions about whether the 1995 censure by the American Philosophical Association should be included. It's the 2nd paragraph of Wittenberg University#About Wittenberg. ElKevbo‎ thinks it's too old and too isolated of an incident to warrant inclusion. I think it should stay because it's a strong accusation against a university from a well-respected group, even it it was a one-time thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrapedApe (talk • contribs) 23:40, September 18, 2013‎

My concern is that it's not presented as a historical incident but as an indictment of the university in its present state 18 years after the incident occurred. Without further information that affirms this is a continuing state of affairs, it seems misleading at best and dishonest at worst to present an 18-year old incident as reflecting the current state of affairs.

I might be open to including this incident in the article's history section or another appropriate section as a historical incident but only if it fits within a broader narrative of some sort. I'm hard pressed to argue for including a single incident if it's a one-off, isolated incident that doesn't provide readers with any broader understanding of the university except for this single factoid. That's not censorship, by the way, it's just good writing and organization. ElKevbo (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable people

Hi. The Wittenberg University alumni list has gotten to the point that it needs to be split off into its own article. See the following colleges as examples. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hamma

Hmmm. A more accurate presentation of the facts is needed for the Hamma 1.1 section. In 1906, Wittenberg established the Hamma Divinity School, and in 1964, this institution became the Hamma School of Theology.

By the 1960s and the 1970s, the Lutheran Church in America and the American Lutheran Church began to set aside their differences. Before the two churches officially reunited, they agreed to merge the Hamma School of Theology and the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary together. The new seminary, known as Trinity Lutheran Seminary, opened on September 1, 1978, in Columbus, Ohio. The seminary is part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. L. Thomas W. (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RE: The Synod Hall section could be rephrased. Synod Hall is where the Hamma School of Theolgy used to be in the 1960s-70s. L. Thomas W. (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)