DonaldRichardSands (talk | contribs) |
DonaldRichardSands (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
{{editprotected}} |
{{editprotected}} |
||
Since no source or reply has been suggested, I ask that an administrator remove the "Progressive" [[WP:LABEL]] from Raymond Cottrell, unless Fountainviewkid provides a [[WP:RS]] for the label by then, in which case I ask that it be added with ''in-text attribution''. In other words, either the label should be removed or sourced. This is independent of the content dispute that caused the article protection below. [[User:BelloWello|BelloWello]] ([[User talk:BelloWello|talk]]) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
Since no source or reply has been suggested, I ask that an administrator remove the "Progressive" [[WP:LABEL]] from Raymond Cottrell, unless Fountainviewkid provides a [[WP:RS]] for the label by then, in which case I ask that it be added with ''in-text attribution''. In other words, either the label should be removed or sourced. This is independent of the content dispute that caused the article protection below. [[User:BelloWello|BelloWello]] ([[User talk:BelloWello|talk]]) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:'''LABELS''' Hi all, why do we consider it necessary to label someone as "progressive" or whatever. If they have labelled themselves, that seems more acceptable. Cottrell's comments quote kind of provide their own identifiers it seems. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 03:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Change of title, rewording. == |
== Change of title, rewording. == |
Revision as of 03:02, 26 April 2011
Tennessee Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Seventh-day Adventist Church Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||
|
Higher education Start‑class | |||||||
|
Conservatism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
The criticism is unfounded, it comes from an obscure source that most Southern Adventist University Students have never even heard of. The credibility of the person making the critical comments is in question as is the statement being made.
ApsbaMd2 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Attacks based on regulations
I found this in the history of the article as I was trying to improve it. (Actually, I found an longer version with more attacks than anything else..) I readded it to the article and whittled it down some before going on a hunt for sources (which I assumed existed). I couldn't find any except this blog post which doesn't seem particularly reliable. So this is probably true but not fit for the article at this point so I'm transferring it here. If there are sources found, it could be readded I guess.. BelloWello (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppressive regulations
Southern Adventist University has been accused of implementing numerous arbitrary rules. Sleeveless shirts are not allowed in the new Wellness Center. The facility has a prime view of shirtless men at the pool. The academic staff believes that sleeveless shirts promote "unchristian" values. Pepper and mustard are banned in the cafeteria and may not be brought in. This regulation is traced to some of the writings of Ellen G. White. It has been said that a majority of the faculty do not agree with the rules, however, the university's wealthy benefactors do. Many of the students believe that the current president, Gordon Bietz, is a bureaucratic puppet for the McKee family. Contrary to the school's supposed commitment to spiritual growth, Southern Adventist University has been accused of stifling spiritual maturation. Instead of providing opportunities for students to formulate ideas themselves, ideas are indoctrinated through propaganda in required worships.
Response to Quixar and explanation of recent edits.
This is in response to a message from Quixar on my talk page. From the content of his message, it appears that he is the same person as IP address 216.229.229.94, which there is no problem with, just something I wanted to note for anyone else who may read our exchange.
- First, you removed information noting critical analysis of Southern from the article while editing from Southern's own servers as a geolocate on the IP shows. I believe this to be a conflict of interest, however, that is not the only justification for my revert. The controversies and comments were all reliably sourced and should have better explanation for removal. As you can see above, I removed an uncited attack on Southern from the article because it did not have appropriate sourcing.
- I removed the information you added because it was largely uncited (I believe there may have been one or two sources), information on wikipedia must have reliable sources. Spectrum is considered a reliable source, AToday is considered a reliable source, Adventist Review is a reliable source but would be a self-published source in referring to an Adventist Institution, etc. We have to have independent sources for information added, hence I reverted your, probably true, but original research edits.
I believe that covers the main issues you brought up. Now to respond to your specific comments on my page:
student missionary death and "gun point" items happened off campus. Unless these incidents happened on campus, I don't find it relevant to the entry. That would lead to us reporting alumni deaths, car accidents, suicides, etc. I didn't remove the death of the student on campus due to the fire because I feel its more relevant to the university since it occurred on campus.
- I'm not sure where you got the idea that a incident has to occur on campus in order for it to be noted in an article on the subject. The "gun point" incident is notable because it resulted in the end of southern's home nursing program. As for the student missionary death, I think it is notable because of the wide attention it received from reliable sources, as well as the fact that Southern places a large emphasis on its student missionary program and it is the only known death of a student missionary. Southern widely promotes it's student missionary program and it even places the number of current student missionaries on its homepage!
The "masturbation controversy" section seems sensationalist in its titling at the very least. I'm not sure why one controversy back in the 80s merited singling out.
- As I said in my edit summary, it could very well be called the biggest controversy southern was embroiled in... How many other controversies has southern been involved in that resulted in the resignation of a board member and caused a president to go on a "sabbatical" in the face of being removed? If you know of any more, please add them with sources! Also, in your edit summary you cited WP:NOTNEWS as justification for your removal. I don't see how that policy applies to events from the eighties, it would apply more to not adding information about trivial news mentions...
The ideology section just seems to be focused on one person's opinion. There have been articles claiming Southern has become too liberal. Why does this one merit inclusion in your opinion?
- The Raymond Cottrell comments merits inclusion due to his status as a leading Adventist scholar. He either served as Editor or Assistant Editor for all three major Adventist publications, well, you can go read his article. His comments on an Adventist institution seems very worth including considering its origin from a very prominent figure. If you can find an article claiming Southern has become too liberal, that is reliably sourced and is not WP:FRINGE, please feel free to include it. I have no disagreement to doing so.
I'll be honest; your recent edits give the impression of vandalism. Most of your edits seem to be to add negative commentary. Using Spectrum, a commentary blog, as a source seems to provide a lot of the negative wording. There is nothing included from the Review, ANN, or any other sources that are more news/announcement.
- Let's not resort to character assassination. Also, I refer you to the policy requirement to assume good faith. Feel free to read above for my reasoning for quoting Spectrum, which I might add is more than a "commentary blog," although that is hardly the point.
I would like to resolve this rather than get into an edit duel. I spent a bunch of time going through an old book on Southern and visiting their website to add some of that information. I don't want to see it go to waste.
- I appreciate your good faith attempt to come to an agreement. If you have information sourced to a reliable book, that is awesome! Please add information from the book to the article and source the information to it! Books are excellent sources.
Thank you for updating the number of majors, etc. I guess your book would probably contain information about the name changes so the citation needed templates could be removed soon... I'll be glad to collaborate with you to improve coverage of southern in wikipedia. BelloWello (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I would be interested if you, as someone who is at Southern could find documentation for the information above that I removed regarding rules at Southern? I could only find self-published blogs about it so it is obviously not reliably sourced but perhaps there's something you can find that could source some of that? BelloWello (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Revert
I have reverted User:Fountainviewkid's edit here, since the term "Progressive" is unnecessary to identify him to readers, they can easily click through to his article to see that. If you feel more identification is needed, I would note that he was involved in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, was the Assistant Editor of the Adventist Review, etc., those would be important identifying facts if needed, being progressive? not so much. BelloWello (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that the identifier Progressive Adventist is appropriate since it provides context to the source. The vast majority of the SDA church would not consider this college to be "ultra-fundamentalist" which I believe sounds more like trying to score cheap political points. By adding the description it allows the quote to be understood properly. Plenty of students come out of Southern which are not "ultra-fundamentalist", Sam Leonor for example. Fountainviewkid 19:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The addition of the label is a violation of the policy on verifiability, as we do not have a reliable source that call him a "progressive." Your disagreement with his characterization notwithstanding, we need reliable sources for everything added, and there are currently no such sources for calling Dr. Cottrell progressive. Even if there were such sources, I would disagree with its inclusion, but we'll discuss that if you actually find sources. BelloWello (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am basing my tagging off the Progressive Adventist page, where he is mentioned in that category. Fountainviewkid 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Which is not reliably sourced either, the fact it is in another wikipedia is not justification to include it in another article per WP:CIRCULAR, so again, please either provide reliable sources or remove the WP:LABEL. BelloWello (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am basing my tagging off the Progressive Adventist page, where he is mentioned in that category. Fountainviewkid 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The addition of the label is a violation of the policy on verifiability, as we do not have a reliable source that call him a "progressive." Your disagreement with his characterization notwithstanding, we need reliable sources for everything added, and there are currently no such sources for calling Dr. Cottrell progressive. Even if there were such sources, I would disagree with its inclusion, but we'll discuss that if you actually find sources. BelloWello (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Since no source or reply has been suggested, I ask that an administrator remove the "Progressive" WP:LABEL from Raymond Cottrell, unless Fountainviewkid provides a WP:RS for the label by then, in which case I ask that it be added with in-text attribution. In other words, either the label should be removed or sourced. This is independent of the content dispute that caused the article protection below. BelloWello (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- LABELS Hi all, why do we consider it necessary to label someone as "progressive" or whatever. If they have labelled themselves, that seems more acceptable. Cottrell's comments quote kind of provide their own identifiers it seems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Change of title, rewording.
I have retitled the section "Early 1980's masturbation controversy" rather than just "Early 1980's controversy," in that, it is more descriptive and unique to this article. There were plenty of controversies around the world in the Early 1980's, the one at Southern needs to somehow be differentiated. BelloWello (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, that part of the article has become quite large in comparison with the others... I'm afraid anymore additions and it might become WP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelloWello (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be differentiated, but the title is still rather misleading. The President and board member were not removed (or made to resign) because of a debate over the issue masturbation. The issue instead was over the authority of Ellen White as a doctrinal guide for the church. I would suggest a title such as "Controversy over Ellen White's Authority" or something to that effect. Fountainviewkid 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The controversy started because a member of the faculty said he disagreed with Ellen White on the medical effects of masturbation, although it grew into part of a wider church conflict, that is what started it at Southern and sets it apart from the others. Hence, I think including the topic that caused the disagreement in the title is reasonable. BelloWello (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Masturbation was only the initial spark. The board member and President did not leave because of masturbation views. They left because there was a dispute about the role of Ellen White. The masturbation issue was a small part of a larger controversy involving the role of Ellen White in the SDA church during the 1980's which continues to this day. The topic which brought Southern into this debate was one smaller issue therefore I believe it is better to have a title which is more generalizable and broad. I see others agree. Fountainviewkid 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Masturbation was the cause and most significant specific aspect. The masturbation issue was the question that caused the "scandal" on campus that the administration was forced address and the president left over. BelloWello (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- This article isn't trying to cover the part of the large controversy, this is only covering the "small part of the larger controversy" that occurred at Southern, and that small part, revolves around the Masturbation issue. BelloWello (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Authority of Ellen White was the most significant aspect which caused the "scandal" on campus. Fountainviewkid 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- What caused the scandal was the fact that some faculty members did not agree with Ellen White's pseudoscience regarding masturbation. How can I make it clearer for you? BelloWello (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, the issue was Ellen White's views on scientific issues, not the issue of masturbation per say. Basically I say give a general title and allow the details to follow. After all that's the way the rest of the article is written. Recent Events, Ideology, etc. don't have detailed title pages, and I think we should have the same policy. Fountainviewkid 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- What caused the scandal was the fact that some faculty members did not agree with Ellen White's pseudoscience regarding masturbation. How can I make it clearer for you? BelloWello (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Authority of Ellen White was the most significant aspect which caused the "scandal" on campus. Fountainviewkid 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- This article isn't trying to cover the part of the large controversy, this is only covering the "small part of the larger controversy" that occurred at Southern, and that small part, revolves around the Masturbation issue. BelloWello (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Masturbation was the cause and most significant specific aspect. The masturbation issue was the question that caused the "scandal" on campus that the administration was forced address and the president left over. BelloWello (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Masturbation was only the initial spark. The board member and President did not leave because of masturbation views. They left because there was a dispute about the role of Ellen White. The masturbation issue was a small part of a larger controversy involving the role of Ellen White in the SDA church during the 1980's which continues to this day. The topic which brought Southern into this debate was one smaller issue therefore I believe it is better to have a title which is more generalizable and broad. I see others agree. Fountainviewkid 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The controversy started because a member of the faculty said he disagreed with Ellen White on the medical effects of masturbation, although it grew into part of a wider church conflict, that is what started it at Southern and sets it apart from the others. Hence, I think including the topic that caused the disagreement in the title is reasonable. BelloWello (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be differentiated, but the title is still rather misleading. The President and board member were not removed (or made to resign) because of a debate over the issue masturbation. The issue instead was over the authority of Ellen White as a doctrinal guide for the church. I would suggest a title such as "Controversy over Ellen White's Authority" or something to that effect. Fountainviewkid 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The other sections don't have anything specific, except for the section on names, whose necessity is caused by name changes. This is about a controversy caused by views on masturbation, hence that should be reflected in the title. Can you please reply to the section regarding labels as well? BelloWello (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe we should keep a consistent policy. Either give details for all the other section titles, or keep this one general. The controversy was on the authority of Ellen White, hence that should be reflect in the title if anything specific should be there.Fountainviewkid 21:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Have you read the source? I just did and very little of it even deals with masturbation. "They revolved around three main areas: teaching concerning righteousness by faith versus perfection; the inspiration of Ellen White; and the concept of the heavenly sanctuary." I would argue that my edits have been closer to the situation at Southern.Fountainviewkid 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to take a break from this and think about it. My blood pressure is currently rising. BelloWello (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea. That's why I went and read the source. Seriously just take a read through the article. I think it should help contextualize the issues.Fountainviewkid 22:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to take a break from this and think about it. My blood pressure is currently rising. BelloWello (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Have you read the source? I just did and very little of it even deals with masturbation. "They revolved around three main areas: teaching concerning righteousness by faith versus perfection; the inspiration of Ellen White; and the concept of the heavenly sanctuary." I would argue that my edits have been closer to the situation at Southern.Fountainviewkid 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've protected the article for a short period to encourage you two to conclude this discussion in lieu of edit warring over the changes. Please let me know if you resolve before the protection expires, and I will remove it. Kuru (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank-you. Hopefully we will resolve this issue. Fountainviewkid 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not gonna worry about this till tomorrow, perhaps Fountainviewkid will take the time to actually answer my comments by then... BelloWello (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The crisis was not long focused on Ellen White's medical views re: masturbation. That was just momentary. Look over the original source, i.e. the Spectrum article. The masturbation controversy was soon in the background as the challenge to orthodoxy developed. To headline the crisis in the early 1980's as "The Masturbation Scandal", or similar, is very sensationalist and rather inaccurate. I can't imagine that masturbation was on the minds of the board as they dealt with Gladson, Knittel, Francis, Zackrison, et al. The crisis did not long focus on masturbation. I suggest that this title does not describe the developing crisis at Southern in the early 1980's. It may have triggered the crisis but it was not the reason for the resignations or firings. Also, the teacher's comment about scientific evidence hardly seems something that would stir up leaders. Perhaps a fringe of the laity, but not the leadership. They would look for reasons which would stand up in board discussions. I attended Southern in the mid 70's and recall meeting a few of the fringe laity. They were quite volatile. But Southern's crisis did not revolve around the masturbation controversy; rather it revolved around the inspiration of Ellen White, the inclusion of textual criticism in the theology curriculum, etc.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank-you. Hopefully we will resolve this issue. Fountainviewkid 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)