Talk:Southern Adventist University

Relevance

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

A brief description is critical for readers unfamiliar with Angel. Especially since there is no wikilink nor external link. Lionel (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the description is tangential and borderline-irrelevant, as the film has only very tangential relevance to the university as a whole. University faculty/students very regularly produce films, musical works, books, paintings, sculptures, etc, etc. Unless the work in question has received a minor award, it is unusual to even mention it, unless it has received a major award, it is unusual to do more than merely mention it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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

The school releases a film every year, there is no way all of them are notable. BelloWello (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It has 2 sources, as of now. Per WP:DUE a brief description is appropriate. Bello, WP:N applies to article retention/deletion, not content. Lionel (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

For the life of me I don't understand what the big deal is. Hrafn: let's drop the WP gobbledygook for a minute. Forget all the nasty stuff Bello told you about me. Editor-a-editor... Will a reader benefit from a brief description of the film? Lionel (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It won't 'benefit the reader'. It is ir-rel-e-vant. It no more benefits the reader than a detailed description of some random building on campus would. It seems to be there only because, no matter how tangential and irrelevant, it appears to be about the only third-party sourced information you can find connected with the School, so you want to include it in order to give the School some vague appearance of notability. But it doesn't really work for that -- it just makes the article appear haphazard and unfocused. And if you think I'm under BelloWello's influence then you have massively misread both my personality (I'm not exactly amenable to peer pressure) and our level of contact (slight). <chuckles> Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Lionel and think the description is relevant. It should not be removed until there is consensus. Fountainviewkid 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WHY is it relevant? WP:NOTDEMOCRACY! So it is not good enough to simply say "I'm with Lionel and think the description is relevant" when Lionel himself has offered no good reason why the description of the film is relevant. Even the existence of the film isn't particularly relevant (as it appears to have won no awards, or otherwise garnered any particular notice to the school -- which itself does not appear to have any particular notability within the university. But then this article appears to be made up pretty much solely of tails-wagging-the-dog. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The film is the subject of at least 1 secondary source, and Land cites is as the first film produced by the dept. That makes it relevant. You have stated several reasons for exclusion, but we have to remember that "There are no rules for determining what is relevant... Determine relevance... through discussion." (WP:RELE) At the end of the day, the consensus will determine inclusion or exclusion. Lionel (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionel stated why it's relevant using the sources. All one had to do was look at them to see the relevance (if it couldn't be seen already). The film school at Southern is significant and the first film that it gets noted for in academic sources also makes it relevant (and notable I might add). Please feel free to keep any insults to yourself or some other page. We had enough hassle on here with the sockpuppet Bello and don't need any other editor to fill in for him.Fountainviewkid 00:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for the compliments. It sounds like we have Bello2. Lord have mercy. Fountainviewkid 3:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the complete lack of anything even-vaguely-resembling a cogent argument, or even a perceptive observation -- I have very little in common with Bello. Have a WP:TROUT and get yourself a clue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to respond to such insulting comments. You have more in common with Bello than you realize. For starters harassing editors on this Talk page. Feel free to assume good faith and make helpful suggestions. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 13::50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Equating expecting cogent argumentation with 'harassment' is hardly assuming good faith. And pointing out deficiencies in argumentation is hardly "insulting" -- it is simply WP:SPADE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Fountainviewkid 17:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What is owned by Southern?

This statement has recently been removed and then put back:

"It operates a radio station, WSMC-FM, a health food store and a wellness center."

The removal was done by Tatababy with the reasons given:

Revision as of 17:51, 7 May 2011 (edit)Tatababy (talk | contribs)(the fact te same people that owns the school owns something doesn't mean the school owns it.)

My Quetion: Isn't WSMC-FM owned by Southern? What about the health food store and the wellness center? Is Tatababy correct? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the website the station is operated by and licensed to SAU. It doen't say owned. My ideology is that it is impossible for any private entity to own the airwaves, but since this refers directly to the equipment, license, etc. I think it is fair to say owned however. As for the health food store and wellness center, the wellness center is definitely owned by Southern, its a facility on the campus. I don't think it deserves particular mention in the lead, however. It's just another building on campus like any other, do we also say "they have a maintenance facility?" I would take that out. The health food store is owned by SAU per its website. So Tatababy is incorrect on all three counts. BelloWello (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter? This stuff has nothing to do with the education there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatababy (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Early 1980s edit

This edit [1] seems to be the object of a slow edit war between Bello and editors Simba & Fountain. I think this change should be discussed. I'm reverting to the Simba/Fountain version since (1) the consensus on this talk page favors a conservative rendering of sources (see masturbation discussion), and (2) there is no discussion why Bello's change is better. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is a revert to the previous version before the version you just reverted to. Hence, your assertion that it is a "change" is incorrect, the edit you just made it to the "changed" new version. The version I reverted to was worked on by both me and DonaldRichardSands. I agree, it should be discussed before such a change is made, hence, I will probably revert it back to the previous wording (the one I worked on with Donald) pending further discussion from Fountain/Simba as to why their change is beneficial. BelloWello (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that your "consensus" is actually irrelevant to the issue. The "consensus" was in terms of the wording of the header, I have bowed to that consensus since it was clear that even the level-headed DonaldRichardSands agreed with the more hot-headed WP:AGENDA driven editors. That consensus on the title does not give them permission to remove valid information from the content which is what was done immediately after. BelloWello (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the edit this is the place for it. If you would rather edit war (and I wish you wouldn't) there is nothing I can do to stop you. Lionel (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am all for discussion. I would love to hear a rationale for why the change that leaves out pertinent information that is reliably sourced is necessary. Until such a rationale is given, I think the article should stay in its previous version. BelloWello (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your version is more sensational than Simba/Fountain's. I don't see where Donald supports your edit, and he wrote "sensationalist wording and conservative understatement, I prefer the conservative understatement." Hmmm... you're not discussing your edit... Why? Lionel (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That was in reference to the title. I would welcome an explanation from Fountain or Simba as to why a change is necessary. Until then, I will busy myself getting more DYKs and upgrading more articles to DYK and do my best to keep the article on the previous wording that was unilaterally changed without consensus. Pity, I was going to work on this article but certain editors are pushing their agenda and making it near impossible to work on. BelloWello (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since they're not here at the moment, and you are, why not elaborate on why your edit is preferable. I don't think we need to wait around for them, do we? I'm listening...

I am not the one advocating a change, hence, the onus is not on me to explain. Until an explanation is given as to why a change is necessary, I am quite pleased with the wording that was previously used and insist on its use until a rationale is provided for, and consensus is reached for a change. I am quite satisfied focusing my efforts on other articles which are being improved while certain WP:AGENDA editors continue their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here. My position is unchanged. Let's here the rationale for any controversial change before making it. BelloWello (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the chronology of what I'll call the "found itself drawn" and the "embroiled in a controversy" versions:

4/30	19:57	simba changes "embroiled" version to "found itself drawn"
5/1	09:52	Bello edits "found itself drawn"
5/4	18:00	Bello changes "found itself drawn" version to "embroiled"
5/5	03:58	Simba changes "embroiled" version back to "found itself drawn." From now on Simba, Fountain, Lionelt immediately revert to "found itself drawn"

From 4/30 to 5/4, a period of 4 days, the article reflected the "found itself drawn" version. Bello, you yourself edited this section and did not reinsert the "embroiled" content. 2 other editors edited the article. For 4 days 5 editors including yourself were fine with the section. A new consensus was arrived at on 4/30.

Would you like to discuss your changes to the section? Lionel (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to where this "consensus" was reached on 4/30. I don't recall any such discussion. My position remains unchanged. BelloWello (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alumni section

Donald, the spacing between entries doesn't look right, and the pics are too small. We also have a free pic of Ponder. What do you say to a gallery? Lionel (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC) How's this?

• 
  Cherie Priest
• Dwight K. Nelson
  Dwight K. Nelson
• 
  Speers Ponder

• 
• Dwight-Nelson.jpg
  Dwight-Nelson.jpg
• 

Take your pick (pun intended)Lionel (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I included the first one, feel free to switch them out if you want. I have no attachment to either. BelloWello (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the gallery approach. I don't like the larger size. People can click on the pictures to see a larger one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wedgwood Trio

I would note that the Adventist Today article, apart from being inappropriately sectarian for establishing the prominence of this group, makes no mention of them being "nationally famous", nor makes mention of Southern Missionary College/SMC (or even Atlantic Union College in relation to this group, for that matter). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed earlier the citation which mentioned the "nationally famous" phrase but left the Adventist Today citation without checking it. I think once you understand the nature of Adventist Today you may not consider it inappropriately sectarian. Adventist Today is actually a gentle counter-culture (Adventist culture) paper. Adventist periodicals very seldom publish controversial news. Adventist Today and Spectrum provide behind the scenes stories. Both journals are not owned or published by the church even though the name Adventist Today sounds like it is. I looked over the Adventist Today piece and found some things about Wedgwood that I did not know before, i.e. that they had been banned and consequently went out of business. I suppose that in itself indicates that they were not nationally famous outside the Adventist church. They certainly made their impact within the church. I recall as a youth hearing about them and the stir they were causing. I will comment out the nationally famous section and invite a proper citation for that fact. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there could be an argument made that the group has a closer relationship to Newbold College (where the group was formed) than to SAU. Regardless, they would probably be more meaningfully discussed in an article that traced Adeventism's (apparently rocky) relationship with popular music than in the context of the University where they happened to spend some time. Also, regardless of where it goes, a source substantiating the material is needed. I'm not surprised that they had little impact outside Adventism, from the descriptions they would seem very stolid and conservative by the wider pop music community of the (extremely experimental, often to the point of self-destruction) time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Land citation clearly links them to Southern. There are some periodicals of the late 60's and early 70's that say they were from Southern. I just finished listening to a recent recording they have done from Australia on Youtube. They say that they present folk music now, not folk rock like they once did. Their music now is by no means controversial even within the Adventist church. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Many periodicals of the time would have mentioned Elvis Presley's time in the army -- but I would not consider that a good reason for a section on him in United States Army. The material to date offers no indication that either of the SAU or the Trio had a profound (or any) influence on the other. Unless sources can be found (for example) stating that the Trio contributed to an identifiable 'SAU sound', or that the University took specific action against them that yielded historically-significant protests, their relationship would appear incidental, and not worthy of mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The ensemble, which provided Southern style folk and bluegrass music, had started in 1964 at Newbold College in England when two SMC students, who were there for a year, joined with a third student from Atlantic Union College. All three, Jerry Hoyle, Don Vollmer, and Bob Summerour, returned to [are at] SMC in 1965 and by the time they graduated from the college, had become well-known within the North American Adventist community.

— Pacific Union Recorder

I have stricken the material in the re-cited in the disputed sentences that are not supported by the source. Not much left. Also note that the source does little to establish noteworthiness (unless you think cooking school classes and fieldtrip are also noteworthy?), and gives only a bare mention to the SMC connection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with your concern for that particular source. I think I have strengthened the kind of citations. Further, I don't believe that noteworthiness within Adventism is in question, is it? The Adventist Church has many articles on wikipedia of entities or persons of little note outside the denomination. I think there are over 500 articles on Adventist topics. I believe that the citations provided in the Wedgwood section clearly establish that they have an SMC connection as graduates and a noteworthy Adventist connection as influences of change within the denomination. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think Wedgwood is relevant. For a while there I thought Wedgwood was a goner... Good job of sourcing, Donald. Love the tie-in to the Beatles. Lionel (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The connection between their music and SAU is sufficiently incidental that they'd make more sense as an Alumni mention than as a section on their own. I would further note that their "noteworthiness within Adventism" is still not supported by the citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider the citations as a whole. Bull and Lockhart certainly speak of them as significant. Land as well. And Johnsson. How many sources must there be before something is noteworty? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is two aspects to this question: (i) When should the article state that they were/are "well-known within the North American Adventist community" -- when we have a source explicitly stating this. (ii) When are they noteworthy in the context of SMC/SAU? When sources do more than simply mention the SMC relationship in passing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cottrell

Cottrell makes a biased statement about SAU in the Ideology section. Cottrell is known to have taken a number of progressive positions later in his career. (Note that he died shortly after making the biased statement.) It's obvious that SAU is conservative. It's obvious Cottrell took progressive positions. It Cottrell is characterizing SAU as untra-conservative, we should not censor the fact that Cottrell took progressive positions. There is no reason why this relevant and sourced content should not be added to the article:

who took a number of progressive positions[2]

Lionel (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship but relevance and weight. It has already been discussed extensively, the reader can easily click through and read more about Cottrell if they'd like. Perhaps you would also like to add that he was one of the most influential individuals in putting together the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and was the editor of the Church's flagship publication, the Adventist Review since that can be reliably sourced? Its obvious that a commenters qualifications should be mentioned. There is no reason why such relevant and sourced content should be censored......... except for due weight. Same goes for your addition that was previously opposed. Please note that "Progressive" and "Conservatives" within Adventist circles are quite a bit different and not quite a polarized as in society, the reason this is relevant is because a highly reputable and respected leader in the Adventist Church put a comment like that into writing, that just usually doesn't happen in the church. But, unless you have a reliable source that connects his positions that some have described after the fact as "progressive" with his surprising statement on Southern, it is no more relevant that 100 other comments on his positions/qualifications. BelloWello (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Who defines what "progressive" means. Here in Canada we used to have "Progressive Conservatives". They were conservatives who thought of themselves as centrist. Hmmm. I doubt that Cottrell even heard the term "progressive" used as an adjective in Adventism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

LaSierra & Adventist Today both have defined Cottrell as "progressive". I would argue these are reliable and valid secondary sources which can be used to apply the label. I would also argue your comment about progressive conservatives in Canada is irrelevant due to there being a Progressive Adventist page which defines the term rather clearly and fits Cottrell almost to the tee. He may not have considered himself "progressive" but his friends did and his beliefs and actions fit easily the definition provided here on Wikipedia. Fountainviewkid 12:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You've never showed us the La Sierra link, Fountainviewkids, I'm not going to comment on something I haven't seen. Again, if we include that label in an attempt to discredit him, when a reader can easily click through and read his article if they are curious, we should also include information about his very large accomplishments. Of course, that would be undue weight, which is why it's best left without any of it. bW 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

All right here it is. The website was having some trouble so I have the cached version, but it's still the same thing [[3]]. It notes "Subsequently, his was a voice for reason and progressive thought...". One need not be a rocket scientist to understand that "progressive thought" which is explained in the next few words refers to Cottrell's contributions to SDA church theology. The label is not an attempt to discredit him anymore than is the label "most conservative school" an attempt to discredit Southern. Both labels are probably appropriate. Cottrell was clearly a Conservative and to have such a biased statement on this link a proper context should be provided, though of course that would defeat the false view Bello is trying to show in portraying him an a neutral and "mainstream" source. Fountainviewkid 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The site you named mentions many things about, in fact the passing mention that he had some progressive positions occurs towards the end and is not even close to the point of the article. If we include that little tid bit, then we should also include his many accomplishments. Or we could just include a link to his page and do all that there. His statement was made in his capacity as a noted Adventist thinker, one of the most influential that we will ever know. Again, why should that specific passing mention be noted but not his many other contributions? You are simply picking and choosing facts to achieve your desired objective in order to discredit the well-deserved criticism that Dr. Cottrell regarding Southern. Please do not re-add the contested information until consensus has been reached. YOu have done your duty under WP:BRD to be bold and addd it, it has been reverted, it is not time to discuss and reach a consensus. He never considered himself a progressive, he should not be labeled as such. bW 20:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you object to the addition on the grounds that it violates WP:DUE? Lionel (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I object based on what I've outlined above. There is no reason to pick and choose one aspect of his career and add it to this article when it can be simply outlined in his article. The fact remains that he was one of the most influential adventists in the nineties, that would be better to include than this. Also, I note, that we are currently 2:2 on inclusion, so even if this were a vote, which it is not, there is no consensus for the addition. bW 19:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove the biased statements that another editor also admitted is essentially a rant. Furthermore the other editor also stated " If the source is obviously a rant, or intensely biased, then even if the author is a respected scholar, the rant should be considered unacceptable". Therefore either we remove the rant or we add context. Otherwise we have an unscholarly propaganda statement by a supposed "influential and respected" leader.Fountainviewkid 18:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for the misleading addition that constitutes undue weight. I would note that the statement was contained in a scholarly paper that he produced, hence your assertion that it is unscholarly is without merit. Either way, the misleading label does not do him justice, and should not be added without a CLEAR consensus to do so. Please stop edit warring to get your way with the article. bW 20:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I do not have consensus for misleading additions. However, my additions are not misleading. The statement may have been in a scholarly paper but it is more of a rant as pretty much all the other editors on here have agreed on. I say either remove the rant or allow for context. Of course you can't let the context be added because that would destroy the ability to try and portray Southern as negatively as you can, something you've been rather focused on lately. Fountainviewkid 20:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you do NOT have consensus for your change. If you want to remove the pertinent quotation from this influential adventist's scholarly paper regarding Southern's ideology, then please feel free to initiate a discussion to attempt to gain consensus. As it remains now, there is NO CONSENSUS for any change and you should stop adding it. You can say anything you want but you do NOT have the ability to choose possible outcomes for everyone else. Furthermore, your personal attacks are out of place. Please either assume good faith or shut the fuck up. bW 20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks? You're the one who just cussed me out. Fountainviewkid 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Swearing is not prohibited as long as it is not a personal attack (directly referring to a user), I am allowed to fucking say "please either assume good faith or shut the fuck up." See this talk page. bW 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

collapsing comment from sock puppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is obvious to anyone who has read Cottrell's writings over the years knows that he became a progressive adventist. It is possible that he tried to hide it so he could stay employed by the church. Ninatukawewe (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BW is right. We shouldn't include the false label. Period. Tatababy (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And where did you come from Tata? I would agree we shouldn't include a false label. Progressive Adventist however is not a false label. Fountainviewkid 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

that's not true, he was my friends grandpa and he was the nicest guy ever. Tatababy (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that he was a nice guy, though if he was such a nice guy why was he so mean in the stuff he said about Southern, Hasel and other SDA conservative people or institutions. There are plenty of nice guys who are progressive Adventist's. Trust me I've met many of them. The issue is not whether someone is a nice guy. The issue is whether the label is appropriate or not. I believe it is. That or the quote is inappropriate. Fountainviewkid 23:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not get to limit the options Fountainviewkid. Those are two out of the three available options, the third of which is to leave it as is. That is also the default position it should remain at until consensus is reached for something else. The label is inappropriate, as Donald, I and now Tata have stated. bW 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not limiting the options. You are. Donald while agreeing with you, also agreed with me that the quote was not scholarly and was a "rant". As for Tata, why are you including him in here? You've essentially said that he shouldn't be around and that he may have been accidentally canvassed by you. In reality you are really the only one holding your view on this. I say either we keep the label and the quote (LionelT, others) or we see the quote as a rant and possible remove it (Donald). That would be a balanced way to do it, instead of your all or nothing approach. Fountainviewkid 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, please stay cool and do not attack each other. I personally think that neither of you are limiting the options - there are no clear-cut options and, the most proper option in my opinion is a compromise.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. So how can we "compromise"? I'm willing to allow the label and the quote, or just get rid of both. Is there another term or source we could use? Suggestions would be helpful. Fountainviewkid 23:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I need to read more about the specifics of this. It looks like however that strong adjectives shouldn't be used (e.g. you use bad instead of disastrous).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, Fountainviewkid, that's what you have been demanding the whole time. Besides, the "source" that supposedly calls him progressive is now dead. bW 23:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello, if the source is not reliable anymore, the information must be removed completely per WP:BLP. However, please note that compromising is necessary to reach consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The source for the quotation is there, it is a scholarly paper the man published. What I am opposing is synthesizing and original research to find a later source that calls him progressive (which has not been found, just sources that call a few of his positions progressive) and to stick that label on him everywhere. Progressives didn't even exist when he lived. bW 00:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that source (the one for the label) is accurate - we need a better source.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is none, Fountainviewkid has searched the ends of the web looking for one. The best we have(had, since the source is offline now) is that he took a few positions which would now be called progressive. bW 00:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I found several sources which provide the label. Furtheremore, progressive did exist when Cottrell lived. To say otherwise is to speak falsely, since he died only a short time ago. This is not synthesizing. It is not simply that he took a few "progressive" positions but that he actually advocated as a "progressive voice". Fountainviewkid 00:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we must take it out per WP:BLP.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a minute Jasper. I have several sources which cite Cottrell as "progressive". These sources are reliable, valid and are not simply self pages. Fountainviewkid 00:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please list them here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are these, Fountainviewkid, you've claimed them multiple times. The closest thing you've given us calling him a "progressive" adventist is a self-published book. bW 00:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid, you say you've found several. Please post the links here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello already pointed one out which is in the obituary in Adventist Today. [4]. Another source which puts him as "liberal" rather than progressive (I would argue they're about the same) is the book "Must We be Silent" written by Dr. Pipim who is an academic within the church. While he is controversial he nevertheless is considered authoritative on church matters, especially with having received his PhD. from the church Seminary. Fountainviewkid 00:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The link is broken.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is an unbroken version of it. http://30-254.bluehost.com/magazine/2003/01/raymond-f-cottrell-tribute. Fountainviewkid 00:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipim is neither notable (article deleted twice), authoritative or reliable. He makes most conservatives look quite moderate. Liberal and progressive are two different things anyway. The AToday link is dead. :) So where are the sources? bW 00:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipim actually is authoritative. His books have been in collaboration with some of the highest thought leaders in the church. Yes his views are conservative but he is authoritative. Fountainviewkid 00:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipim has NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever. He is a reactionary right-winger who pushes his views on everyone and attempts to vilify any who disagree. Again, if you think he is notable, he can be quoted with direct attribution in the Cottrell article, AFTER getting his own page. So if you want, you can improve the encyclopedia by writing an article on this "authoritative" "conservative" figure that would survive AfD. bW 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually he has quite a bit. He has authored books along with the head of the BRI, Assistant to the BRI, Seminary Dean, various Seminary Professors, and leading church evangelists. He was also influential in working with Dr. Damsteegt (a leading SDA academic who authored "Adventists Believe"). While you may not like his ideology as it as right wing as Cottrell is left wing, he nevertheless is a valid source. He is notable as a source on theological debates within the SDA church. Biased, yes but still notable just as Cottrell is. I'm not out for trying to re add a page on him, notability aside. Fountainviewkid 4:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Template:Rfcid Noted Adventist scholar Raymond Cottrell made some comments about the subject of this article before his death stating that it was a "conservative" school, as has alread been reliably sourced although he has gone into significant more depth on this. There is disagreement on this page regarding its inclusion. I would like to divide this into two questions:

1. Is the fact that a former editor of the church's flagship publication, the Adventist Review, an editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, founder of newsmagazine Adventist Today and noted Adventist thought leader commented on Southern in a scholarly paper notable of inclusion in the article?
2. Should he be labeled as a "progressive" adventist, despite the fact that he never considered himself a progressive Adventist and the best source that we have been provided for that designation is a obituary[5] from a publication that promotes progressive thought (which may have something to gain by saying this leading Adventist took some progressive views). Is this source enough to include, without context, that he held progressive views, despite the fact that this (deadlinked) source only said he held progressive views towards the end of his career in two areas? Or should it be included, to provide "context" for him calling SAU conservative, despite the fact that he does not self-designate himself as such?

Please read the above for context, I've tried to summarize the arguments. Thanks. bW 23:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have other sources, Fountainviewkid? I would not say this is a reliable source as it is only one person's view on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue this obituary is from a magazine which has credibility and therefore is reliable secondary source. Donald, and the other editors I believe would agree with me on this. It is not just one person's view as the magazine is not just online. If it were "self-published" it would be one person's view but it's not. Also I have the Pipim book which labels him as "liberal" so you can take your pick. And yes Pipim is considered authoritative. Finally I would suggest that we not take any action on this until the other editors also come to a consensus. As I noted they are on record supporting the use of Adventist Today as a valid source. Fountainviewkid 1:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should revert it to the previous version that had consensus and did not include the contentious label until consensus can be reached for a change. bW 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The previous version that had consensus? We've never had consensus on this page since the controversial section on ideology appeared. Other uninvolved editors have been noticing this as well. It is not just the label but rather the whole section that is contentious. We need a compromise but so far all Bello wants to do is keep the rant no context allowed. Fountainviewkid 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please STOP your unsupported incivil assertions. The text was stable in the article for over a week till Lionelt added the previous rejected wording in it. If we are to include context that can be easily found in his article, that context should include his accomplishments including editing the Adventist Review and Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and founding the Biblical Research Institute and Adventist Today. That contexts should NOT include poorly sourced labels from Pipim. bW 18:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My assertions are supported though it depends which editor you ask. The text was not stable. It was debated even before Lionel showed up. If we are to include context it should be to explain how the "rant" fits into the whole Southern relationship. The Pipim label is not poorly sourced, but that's a debate for another time. Fountainviewkid 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The only uninvolved editor to comment on this page, Jasper, clearly agreed the source wasn't sufficient. I am sure Hrafn would too if you asked him. If we include your little label to demean him without good sourcing, I insist that in addition to the accomplishments listed above we also note that he wrote 2000 pages in the Adventist Bible Commentary. You are simply trying to demean the qualifications of one of the most influential adventist leaders because you disagree with one quote. bW 19:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Right now there are currently no "uninvolved" editors that have commented below. If you look at other pages where this is being discussed there are other "uninvolved" editors who have noted the same things I mentioned. The little label is to provide context, not to demean. His views were in the progressive adventist category, especially those on Southern. I have yet to hear a "mainstream" adventist described southern as "bible-belt obscuratinism" and other ranting phrases as Cottrell did. The only thing demeaning is what he said about others, respected and scholarly though he allegedly is. Yes he helped write the commentary and as you probably know he had some big problems with mainstream SDA theology during that time. F. D. Nichol however pretty much ignored his comments in order to make the church and EGW look better. While he may have been influential he was nevertheless controversial within the church. It appears to me that you are trying to demean Southern, especially as you've already gone on record mocking it's policies and procedures. Fountainviewkid 19:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we re-write this RfC so it is more neutral? It is dripping with POV and leading, biased assertions. Lionel (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors

This is a false summary. He did not just say it was a "conservative" school. He said it was "ultraconservative", part of "Bible-belt obscuratanism", etc. These comments have already been labeled as rants by every other editor on here except the one posting the comments. While he may have the qualifications the statements within the article are highly controversial and not very scholarly. Second the progressive label is appropriate to provide context to the quote. The source which provides the quote Adventist Today is reliable and valid. The fact that it may/may not have something to gain is irrelevant, especially as this obituary is 8 years old. While he may not label himself as such others certainly did and if his quote which is rather a rant is to be included then the context of "progressive" should be added as well. Fountainviewkid 00:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the source for "progressive positions." Adventist Today is RS. The author, Jim Walters, "teaches at Loma Linda University" and is a "founding member of Adventist Today." I think he is qualified to speak about Cottrell. The phrase should be included. Lionel (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The banned user Bello is incorrect about Pipim. His article was deleted, but was recreated and is alive and well (and sourced) at Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. He appears reliable to me. If Fountain has something to add from Must We be Silent let's see a quotation... Lionel (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

B.C. or B.C.E.

B.C. or B.C.E.

Biblical Christianity has nothing to say about concerns over how dates are rendered. It is a minor matter, but when you give it further thought, to insist on B.C. rather than B.C.E. is to take part in the forcing of Christian perspective on the world whether they want it or not. For Christians to use B.C.E. is not a denial of Christ. Rather, it is a denial of worldly dominance. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to BC-AD so that the wikilinks work: world domination wasn't on my mind. But, since you bring it up, the source also uses BC-AD. I think we should use BC-AD. Lionel (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Just wanted to explore the world domination theme.

Wedgwood as Notable within Adventist Church

Johnsson (see citation in References of article) wrote:

In the summer of 1965 three fresh-faced American young men came home from studies at Newbold College, England—and changed Adventist music forever.

Gary Land wrote:

The Wedgwood Trio, a folk trio from SMC, achieved widespread popularity in the denomination and thereby introduced contemporary sounds into popular Adventist music.

Bull and Lockhart wrote:

they transformed the sound of Adventist music.

Regarding just listing them as notable alumni: That is not enough, in my opinion. Their impact on the Adventist music scene is a story that should be told. It is interesting that "conservative" Southern Missionary College produced this avant-garde group. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that it didn't 'produce' them -- Newbold College did (as the sources clearly document). SMC just happens to be where the Trio ended up for a while after returning to the US. And I've seen nothing to date to indicate that they were in the least bit "avant-garde" -- their notoriety appears to be for having the temerity to attempt to introduce already-existing (and relatively tame) contemporary musical influences to a reactionary Adventist community that was highly resistant to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that, like any musical group, they developed all along their experience. They graduated from Southern. In that sense they were a product of Southern. Sure they began in Newbold, but they lived, and breathed, wrote music, performed, and shook Adventism's status quo at Southern and as graduates of Southern. It is surprising that their relatively tame music had such an impact on Adventism. The reaction of the church by banning their work (see Johnsson) is further evidence of their notability within the church. The Adventist world church leadership do not take such action against non-notable groups. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"In that sense" they are also "a product of" the bus that they took to school each day and the cereal they ate for breakfast. The sources make it clear that they were a well-established group before they returned to the US, and make no explicit mention of any particular influence SMC had on them -- making any such influence pure speculation. The banning issue gives them relevance to the church as a whole (and would make them very relevant to any article on Adventism and music), but does not make them any more relevant to the university (which does not appear to have played any particular role in banning them). You have not established any relationship between them and SMC beyond "they graduated from Southern" -- a relationship that only merits a mention in the Alumni list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that we do not agree on this. If this remains a point of conflict we may need to ask for help in resolving it.

I do want to thank you for your persistence. It has helped me clarify my thinking and to find sources which clearly support the text. Differences can be quite helpful. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you explain why the Wedgwood Trio is more relevant to SAU than Maggie Brown, Clifford Goldstein, Dwight Nelson, Thomas Mostert, Speers Ponder, Cherie Priest, Mark S. A. Smith or Mathew Staver? All of whom likewise "graduated from Southern. In that sense they were a product of Southern." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a competition. The paragraph establishes sound reasons for the connection between Southern and Wedgwood. The trio is not profiled anywhere else on Wikipedia and they are notable enough to be connect with Southern as the paragraph has done.

(i) I did not state that it was a competition. It is however an issue of editorial consistency. (ii) Given none of the sources do more than give a bare mention of the SMC connection, no "sound reason" has not been established. (iii) That is not a valid reason why the place they should be profiled is here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Probably totally irrelevant, is there enough on this group that they can have their own article? (We would need sources outside of Adventism...) If not, how about moving it to the Newbold College page? bW 16:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hi BW, it certainly would be fitting for Newbold to mention the Wedgwood. But that does not warrant its removal from this Southern article. Without guidance from a few other notable administrators here, we remain at an impasse. I don't understand why there is such resistance to the Wedgwood paragraph. In my opinion, we need some help from a few veteran Wikipedia editors. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Is there relationship with SAU sufficiently more intimate than any of the alumni listed above that they warrant their own section, rather than a mention in the alumni list? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There probably is. For context reasons I'd probably prefer to see it dealt with in an article dealing with Adventism's relationship with popular music than in isolation (otherwise the banning of what seems to have been, for the period, a fairly unexceptional and unadventurous folk music group, would seem confusing to the uninitiated reader). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way the last sentence for the current Wedgewood blurb "In the early 70's their career was brought to a halt when their records were banned from the church's retail book outlets" is not supported by the source. The source states that the band disbanded because concert invitations dried up after the group was banned from Pacific Union College's campus in 1970. The group made recordings for Bridge records (subsidiary of Chapel) up until 1973 (see "Country Church" album). Given the symbiotic relationship bewtween Chapel and the Adventist Book Center, I can't see how these discs were banned there. 78.26 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Splitting out Wedgwood Trio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as No consensus. Noting that BelloWello is indef blocked, and Tatababy is a SPA/possible meatpuppet.

---

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

I object to this action as I believe notability has been established. Fountainviewkid 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My views have been presented earlier. We need counsel from some veteran editors. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Two points: (i) nobody has even attempted to distinguish how the Trio are different from any of the other alumni currently on the Notable Alumni list (rather than having their own section), (ii) "notability" is an argument for a separate article, not against it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Donald. We need counsel from some veteran editors before we make any changes on this issue.Fountainviewkid 18:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) Non-responsive to either of the points I raised & (ii) I am a "veteran editor" (4 years, 32,000 edits if anybody's interested) -- so why are you avoiding engaging (either to accept it, or to refute it) my "counsel" so assiduously? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We've all presented are views earlier. Lionel, Donald, and I are all in agreement that the Trio should stay. No need to rehash all points. Fountainviewkid 17:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

None of you have either (i) made any attempt to state why the Wedgwood Trio should have a section within this article, when other alumni don't (the only argument for their section has been that they are graduates of SMC, which would also apply to all other alumni -- making this argument a special pleading -- a logical fallacy) or (ii) explained why notability of the Trio means that they should not have an article of their own (as is normal Wikipedia practice for notable topics). So no, you have NOT "already engaged" me on these points. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Already engaged on those points. Agree with Donald. Fountainviewkid 17:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Where? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay. It appears one of my posts didn't actually get posted. Here's what I thought was already available. Sorry for the confusion. On one of the sources it was noted that while the Trio met at Newbold they really took off at SMC. One key fact was that only 2 of the 3 were originally from SMC (the other being from AUC). By the third one choosing to come to SMC, the trio was able to stay alive and achieve notability, otherwise it would have died. SMC played a role not only by having them graduate but also by being the place where all 3 of them originally began to be recognized. Also it was at SMC where they officially took their name. Additionally their first recording came at SMC through the help of one of the teachers. Their first sales occurred at SMC as well. Finally they got involved in evangelistic series through SMC when HMS Richards visited the school. This link has a lot of the details which connects SMC to the trio [[6]]. Fountainviewkid 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you added it, but then deleted it immediately with a later post. The problem with this argument is that the group would likewise have survived if they'd all returned to AUC, or all stayed at Newbold until they graduated, or all gone to Pacific Union College instead, or all decided to drop out of college to pursue their musical careers. SMC remains incidental to the group continuing (all that was needed is that they ended up in the same location somehow). This is a very weak argument for claiming a special relationship to the institution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You did the same thing that Bello does; only reply to one portion of my argument. Remember I gave more reasons than just the fact that they all returned to SMC. I believe I listed at least 5 other reasons connecting the Trio with SMC. I would argue that if they had stayed at Newbold or gone to PUC or some other place then they should appear under that school's article. The fact they chose SMC is more than incidental as it then became identified with their music. Read the source. It makes it pretty clear that SMC was more than "incidental". Fountainviewkid 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- the first was the argument you'd already made in your deleted post, so it was the one I already had a counter for. I have seen no evidence to date that SMC was (i) "the place where all 3 of them originally began to be recognized" (and the PUR discussion of their European successes seems to argue otherwise) (ii) "where they officially took their name" (all that seems to have happened is that they changed their name due to another group in the area already using their old one) (iii) where "their first recording" was made (they seem to have recorded music in France) or (iv) where "their first sales occurred" (no indication from the IAMA piece where the sales occured, only when). I'm not sure what you mean by "evangelistic series". Reliable sources for any of this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay good. Thanks for partially responding to most of my points. (i) I still don't buy your counter though and neither do the other editors. As for it being the place where they were originally recognized, the source I am using states "When summer ended, The Wedgwood Trio was nationally known in Adventist circles and hugely popular with young people" (this occurred while they were at SMC, before they had been known but not "nationally recognized"). (ii) The name is important as it symbolizes their mission. While the change was done due to another group already having it the source notes "decided the name had a classy ring to it and would suggest high quality folk music". (iii) According to the source "During the school year they had worked with Jim Hannum, a teacher at SMC, to record and produce their first record". I guess when I mean "recording" I am referring to record or today's version of album, even though you are right in that they were recorded in Europe for educational and evangelistic purposes. SMC was where they made their first record. The source describes the recording as occurring in conjunction with SMC faculty and (Donald could probably confirm this) appears to have been made at SMC (it was during the school year). (iv) Evangelistic series are religious meetings Adventists use to try and convert other people to become Adventist sort of like the Billy Graham crusades. HMS Richards was one of the most famous SDA evangelists. It was through evangelism that they also became well known and this occurred as the source notes "while visiting on campus". Additionally they had another record made "during their final semester at SMC". The reliable source has been already noted aboveFountainviewkid 20:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally Southern University itself lays official claim to it's formation. Southern Columns, the official magazine of the university wrote in the fall of 1993 that "The original Wedgwood Trio was formed at Southern Missionary College in 1966" (back cover)[[7]]. Fountainviewkid 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been noted many, many times, weight in an article cannot be established by self-published sources. bW 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this before Bello. Self-published sources are appropriate and can be used.Fountainviewkid 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have been through this before. I don't understand why you're bringing it up again. Secondary sources are absolutely required to show weight, as has already been established. This is getting ridiculous. bW 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And the weight has been shown. Fountainviewkid 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguments by assertion are widely considered logical fallacies. So, let's try again, self-published sources do not add to this discussion because they do not prove due weigh to Southern. bW 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not by "assertion" and is not a logical fallacy. This is not a self-published source. Instead it is an article which is "based in part on interviews conducted by Marilyn Thomsen with members of the Wedgwood Trio, which were then edited and placed in context by her in "Wedgwood: Their music, their journey", Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1996. That's not "self-published". Fountainviewkid 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello, you wrote "weight in an article cannot be established by self-published sources." I couldn't find that in WP:DUE. Where is it? Lionel (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, most certainly I am in agreement that the Trio should stay.Simbagraphix (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should they stay? Bald statement of a position, without stating a reason, let alone attempting to engage the counterarguments, does not add much to the conversation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support splitting section out into a new article on the Trio and listing a link under Notable Alumni. Their association with Southern can be noted in THEIR article where it belongs, if it reliably sourced (I'm not speaking to sourcing). Perhaps a request for comment would be appropriate here... bW 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting section. See previous discussion. Fountainviewkid 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• See, WP:NOTAVOTE. bW 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As other editors have noted you use this mainly to try and force your view on the article. No this is not a vote, but when the majority of the editors working on this article are opposed to an action it should not occur unless action is taken by higher powers. Fountainviewkid 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think a standalone Wedgwood would survive AfD. Note that many of the people listed in the Alumni section have been sent to AfD by a certain editor.
• Support I think Wedgewood Trio should survive AfD because of two points: First is musical notability #5: Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). Chapel Records qualifies for this criteria. Also the Trio is notable because it significantly affected Adventist musical culture, and affected Adventist culture in general to some degree. 78.26 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support That section is totally out of place here. Take it out! Tatababy (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration Committee

Has anyone reading this had experience with Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee ?

The discussion re: The Wedgwood Trio is at an impasse, IMO. There has been significant work put into the paragraph on the group both in finding reliable sources and making good faith adjustments based on critical comments. I am personally surprised at the negative interest some seem to have about anything relating the the Southern article. Maybe I am being overly sensitive, but some editors do very little to build an effective article. In the overall picture of life, why such intense interest in controlling the Southern article. Are there some unstated conflicts of interest? Whatever the case, it seems like we will need some form of arbitration to move forward. I have put a lot of work into finding reliable sources for the Wedgwood paragraph, but do not consider the trio to be the subject of a separate article at this point. Maybe someone would like to develop a Wedgwood article without tampering with what we have developed on the Southern article. Once that Wedgwood article is up and running, maybe we can talk further. Meanwhile, the Wedgwood paragraph should not be taken out of Southern's article without an Arbitration decision, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support in sending this to arbitration. I agree with Donald. Though I have not worked with Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee before I think it might be a good idea. I already have a few sources which could be added to the article in order to make good faith adjustments. I agree that perhaps at some point Wedgwood could separate but for now keeping it with Southern based on the history of the group would be a good idea.Fountainviewkid 21:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking further on this. Eventually, a separate article on Wedgwood might work. There is one source which is kind of illusive but strong in telling the Wedgwood story. That source is:

Marilyn Thomsen (1996). Wedgwood: their music, their journey. Pacific Press Pub. Association, 1996. 176 pages.

The International Adventist Music AssociationDonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The International Adventist Music Association Online as a source for The Wedgwood Trio

At first the website http://www.iamaonline.com/ did not seem very reliable. IAMA is the International Adventist Music Association. But, after investigating the site and its careful use of sources, I have developed considerable respect for what they have set forth there. They provide an amazing musical resource including information about the Wedgwood Trio. They introduced me to Marilyn Thomsen's work. Eventually the material provided there could be helpful in developing a separate Wikipedia article on the Wedgwood Trio. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Until such an article exists, I remain opposed to any reduction of the Wedgwood paragraph on this SAU article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ranked eight consecutive years

As I recall this content has been in the article for some time. Recently Bello found a more current source and boldly removed it, most recently, with the edit sum "rmv irrelevancy that was added without discussion":

and has been ranked one of the “Best Baccalaureate Colleges” for eight consecutive years as of 2010.[8][9]

It's bizarre that he refers to this as "irrelevancy" since it is obviously relevant. It's strange that he is demanding discussion since it was already in the article, and he boldly removed it. The way BRD works is that an editor is bold (Bello removing the content), he gets reverted (Simba and myself have reverted Bello) and then he discusses why he thinks the content should be removed. Bello, this content is sourced, and I can't imagine your position is that it's irrelevant, so under which policy are you claiming this content should be removed? Lionel (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that content was recently added and I am reverting the irrelevent addition. I would note that "Best Baccalaureate Colleges" was simply a category of colleges for U.S. News and World Report, colleges are placed in one of these categories. The worst baccalaureate college in the country was listed in that category until they were renamed in this years rankings. So, again, writing that it was listed as a "Best Baccalaureate College" according to U.S. News and World Report is simply misleading, it was listed as a Baccalaureate College, now a Regional College (same thing). So again, it is simply redundant of what is already written, that it is categorized by the USN&WR (which gets its classifications from Carnegie) as a Southern Regional College, the new name of what was known as the Best Southern Baccalaureate College category. So why exactly should we note that it was listed in the same category for the past nine years? We would note if it's category had changed, but that is not the case. However, all that aside, lets hear the argument for inclusion since the onus on those being bold and making the addition to argue their side! bW 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep making the claim that "the onus on those being bold and making the addition to argue their side." This in fact is contrary to policy. From WP:BRD: "... I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Lionel (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Hence, after I removed the addition, the burden is on those who added it, when it was restored, the onus would again be on those who restored it. bW 22:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected to source. Now reads "and has listed it as a Top Tier college for eight consecutive years as of 2010" Lionel (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is more acceptable. How about this wording: "The U.S. News & World Report categorizes it as a Southern Regional College and has consistently listed it as one of its top tier schools in that category." It's shorter, I don't think it misrepresents the source since not only was it eight consecutive years, it is still listed as a top tier, even if not very high. I also think it sounds better with my proposed wording. bW 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like my wording, at the very least, please remove the superflous comma, has→had and use lower case for "top tier," until we can discuss the wording further. bW 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If Simba approves it's OK with me. Lionel (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the change. bW 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You left out the operative phrase of WP:ONUS: "remove any material lacking a reliable source." The content in question was sourced. You are citing WP:ONUS where it has no application. I suggest you be more careful in the future when you start talking about "the onus..." Lionel (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

New User

Is this new editor a sockpuppet? Someone needs to check. Fountainviewkid 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Same concern. Created WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the repeated edit warring on this article I have re-protected. Please seek consensus on the talk page rather than simply reverting each other. I or another admin can remove the protection as soon as editors agree to work together.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We may be dealing with a sock. Hopefully we will get this cleared up. Thank-you for protecting the page in the short term. Fountainviewkid 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PREFER, the section should be reverted to the previous version which did not contain the contentious label. bW 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should delete the controversial quotation as well? That has never really been accepted by the editing community. Fountainviewkid 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That has been in the article for weeks. The current edit war kicked off about three days ago with Lionelt's addition. That section should be reverted to as it was then. bW 23:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to forget that this debate has been going on for "weeks" now. That quote has been one of the key points of contention. The addition was not just 3 days ago. The "progressive" label has been in and out of the article for "weeks" now also. If the section is to be reverted perhaps the quote should be taken out as well. Fountainviewkid 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It remained in the article while you edit warred over the inclusion of the masturbation among other things, you removed it at the beginning but its remained there since until Lionelt brought it up again. That was the new steady version at that point. bW 00:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

This is a controversial edit and therefore is in violation of the rules regarding it's request. Fountainviewkid 4:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the request above where I ask that the section in conflict be moved back to the last stable version (about three days ago), I would like to make the following uncontroversial edit request:

Jewelry is not allowed on Southern's campus in any form, engagement rings included. Students are fined if found to have violated the ban.

to

Jewelry is not allowed on Southern's campus in any form, engagement rings included. Students are fined if found to have violated the ban.

in order to provide an archive link for the currently broken citation.

Also, please remove

, who took a number of progressive positions,[42]

from the ideology section as it is not well sourced and a WP:LABEL. Thanks. bW 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove the quotation "Who took a number of progressive positions" as it is documented and reliable at this source [10]. This is a quote which has the support of several editors with the only current opposition being the one proposing it's removal. Fountainviewkid 3:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping

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

Sockpuppet

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

Yes and I think that turned out inconclusive. Big news however see below. Fountainviewkid 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello a sockpuppet

It has been confirmed that our Bello friend is a sockpuppet of WikiManOne and has been blocked indefinitely, unless he successfully appeals the block. The link is here [11]. Once the article is released from protection we should all work on achieving a consensus. I believe Donald probably provided the fairest counter to any of our[Lionel, Simba, myself] proposed edits and would like his input on finishing up the article..Fountainviewkid 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Incredible....I didnt even suspect it. Well I think everyone else were striving hard to work together and trying to honestly improve the article with their edits, and think its fine having Donald finishing up. Great job guys....Simbagraphix (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I think it is appropriate to lift the page protection at this time. If edit warring starts again it can be re-applied, but I urge editors to work towards consensus and use the talk page for calm discussion of disputes.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the History of SAU

Historical topics to develop

Southern began at Graysville.

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

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

Dates to document

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

• Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook for 1893. Battle Creek, Michigan: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. 1893. p. 66. Retrieved May 16, 2011.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

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

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

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

It earned junior-college accreditation in 1936,

became a senior college in 1944,

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

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

Graysville Academy

Basic facts to document and develop:

KILGORE

• Kilgore was the superintendent of District #2 and later President of the Southern Union. Before coming South he had been the President of the Illinois Conference for three years. Long before he had fought in the civil war and was a highly respected solder. See obituary by G. I. Butler, 1912.
• Kilgore spoke strongly for Christian education in the South.

• General Conference Committee received a 'memorial' from Graysville requesting a school. They forwarded it to Kilgore. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCC/GCC1891/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=62

• Kilgore quote: GCB March 8, 1891 The council recently held in Atlanta, ... 7. The greatest call and most imperative demand of all for the advancement of the third angel's message in the southern field is for a school where workers may be developed on southern soil to labor in this field- The circumstances which meet us in this section of the country are peculiar, and to make rapid the advancement of the cause in this field, it is necessary that this Conference should take immediate steps to set on foot some measure which will provide for relief in this direction. pp. 4, 5 http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1891-02/index.djvu

GEORGE W. COLCORD

• Kilgore called G.W. Colcord to help him. Colcord was from the West where he had started the school which became Walla Walla University.
• Colcord arrived at Graysville in 1891 (Spalding, p. 505)
• Colcord put his own finances into the school at Graysville.
• It was run by Colcord under Kilgore's oversight.

• "George W. Colcord, founder of Milton Academy in Oregon, which eventuated in Walla Walla College; founder of our first school in the South, Graysville Academy, now Southern Missionary College."

• Spalding, Arthur Whitefield (1949). Captains of the Host (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association. p. 704.

SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL 1897

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

• "5. That the request of the District Conference held at Graysville, Tenn., in, November, last (1897), that the name of the Graysville Academy be changed to the SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, be granted. SIXTY-FIFTH GENERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. Battle Creek, Mich. , March 20, 1898. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCC/GCC1898/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=7 ;

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

Southern Industrial School

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

• General Conference had been paying for the teachers.

• Allee requests that from here on only the principal be paid by the General Conference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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