Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:45, 2 November 2006

This article was nominated for deletion on 13/9/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on October 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus, LEANING TO KEEP.

JYolkowski // talk 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm disputing the NPOV of this article for the following reasons:

• It also cooperates with other Great Commission Christians who are on the cutting edge of ministry.
  • Great commission Christians The implication is that those Christian with whom the BHCTI doesn't cooperate are not Great Commission Christians (Like those yokels over there at Southwestern Baptist Theological 'Cemetery'. (Also the wording is sloppy "IT also cooperates with OTHER Great Commission Christians--An Institute isn't a Christian.)
  • on the cutting edge of ministry. Clearly this is an opinion and one heavily weighted in favor of BHCTI.
• Carroll emphasized two dimensions of theological education as equally important: academic excellence and practical application.
  • No support for the claim "Carroll emphasized two dimensions of theological education as equally important. Indeed, I posted a quotation of his deathbed charge to his successor on the B. H. Carroll page. One could argue that avoiding heresey was more practical application. (To this end the Conservatives of the SBC seemed to have used that deathbed charge as a blueprint from wresting the convention out of the hands of the "modern devotees of higher criticism ." (See how nasty NPOV can get?)
• "B. H. Carroll Theological Institute differs from other theological institutions in the scope of its philosophy of education, its approach to resources, and its relationship with churches and other educational institutions. Carroll Institute does not accept certain implicit but persistent assumptions about ministerial training. Theological education does not have to be highly competitive. By enlarging incentives and opportunities for learning, the entire student base is expanded to such a degree that other institutions will benefit as well.
  • This is clearly an ad. In fact lifted verbatum from the school's website: B.H. Carroll Theological Institute- Mission & Vision

I'd like to see it cleaned up, so that it can properly be expanded.SonPraises 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added also the factual accuracy since this institute seems to have no accreditation or provids any idependnet sources to verify it claims.

DRCarroll 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation

It is not a canidate for Southern Assocaitation accredaition nor to we have proof it meets the requirements. It needs to be left off. A group "hoping" for something doesn't need to be included in the article, especially when it comes to academics. The template stays as their own page admits they can't want degrees in texas, their home state. MOS:BIO excludes academic titles.Arbusto 14:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

1) I disagree with you entirely regarding academic titles and what I think is a complete and utter misinterpretation of MOS:BIO requiring an absolute ban on the use of academic titles in any circumstance (see Condoleezza Rice, where she is referenced as "Dr. Rice" a half-dozen times, for the most notable counterexample of thousands on Misplaced Pages). However, I now realize that it is far more important to focus on presenting a genuinely neutral view of the school than to fight to retain two letters and a period. 2) Any plan involves a sequence of steps. It's ludicrous to not mention a final, stated goal, simply because proof that all prerequisites have been completed to guarantee success has not been provided. If I announced plans to swim across the English Channel, I could state that before I jumped in the water at Dover; after all I can't state with certainty that I will actually do it until I come ashore at Calais. The school is a new school. It does not yet grant degrees. It is pursuing state certification, which will allow it to grant degrees and is a prerequisite for regional accreditation. Once it has the state certification, it plans to seek regional accreditation. Why are you opposed to providing useful information that explains that it seems to be following the steps any new school must follow, without trying to make a WP:POINT using the template that it is not accredited? Do you have any evidence that the school is a diploma mill or that it is trying to induce students to attend with false promises of degree-granting authority or accreditation? Alansohn 15:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The template is standard for unaccredited institutions because degrees, credentials may not be legal in some areas like texas. Why are you insisting that we make an exception?

Regarding MOS:BIO: Read the talk, I wanted to leave the titles in. I was out voted. This is policy. You'll notice on the talk I gave example of it beings used, and I was told to remove them. (You'll note that discussion and decision was months back.) Arbusto 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given up on the "Dr." title, but I could show you thousands that violate this "rule," and a plain reading of MOS:BIO simply does not say what you're saying it has been interpreted to mean. I have edited the article, leaving in my broader explanation of the school's pursuit of certification and accreditation. The unaccredited template is under the explanation. As the article stands, I would find it hard to believe that any individual reading the article would not get the point that the school is unaccredited or the implications thereof. Alansohn 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding BIO:MOS, the last decision discussed on the talk and approved with consensus to insert it the way it is (I opposed at the time) is clear. The author of the proposal said it was to "eliminate the use of academic titles with names, and I hope put to bed internecine squabbling about whether a person "deserves" a given title or not."

I'll compromise on leaving the accreditation claim in, but it needs to be noted that are not a canidate for accreditation. Arbusto 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Claims of "hope" to have accreditation must be taken out, as I have noticed a serious POV pushing pattern on unaccredited schools. Arbusto 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that they are not a candidate was removed as unverifiable. They say they are a candidate. CHEA does not claim to keep track of candidates, and explicitly says that there are accrediting organizations that have accredited schools not listed in CHEA's database. "Participation in the CHEA database is voluntary. Some recognized accrediting organizations have chosen not to be included." CHEA's database search page. To show them to not be a candidate, an affirmative statement that they are not a candidate needs to be found in a reliable source. GRBerry 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have a independent source that shows that meet the basic standards for accreditation it should be listed. Until then we know it does not have accreditation and it is not a canidate. We do this for all unaccredited places. Arbusto 08:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we do not know that it is a candidate. I've explained above the logic why your prior basis for thinking this was not verifiable. As this claim is both 1) challenged and 2) unverified, it should be removed from the article until such time as you can produce verification. Now, it is possible that I am wrong about using CHEA as a basis - but their home page is absolutely not a source for this statement, and that is all you have offered so far. CHEA explicitly states that their database does not include accredited schools from all recognized accrediting agencies, and is absolutely silent (so far as I can see) about whether candidates are in their database. If you want to try using CHEA, please use baby steps here on the talk page, and have your citation be to an exact location at CHEA, not just their home page. I have yet to find anything at CHEA that claims to keep track of candidates from any agency, much less the all that are needed to use them to verify your claim. GRBerry 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? So you believe it is seeking accreditation? Provide a source. Who are they applying to and when? CHEA lists canidates and this isn't listed. Arbusto 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that it is seeking certification. Their website claims that they are, some of the press coverage has said that they are. You have said multiple times that CHEA list candidates. I asked in the immediately prior step that you spell this out in baby steps. I have looked multiple times at the CHEA site, and find no claim by CHEA that CHEA lists candidates. Why do you believe they do. I will continue to remove the claim if you site it to the CHEA home page. If you follow the link I provided two edits ago, and hit I agree on the license agreement, the italicized paragraph explicitly states that there are CHEA recognized accreditors that do not list in CHEA's database. So you can't even source a claim that a school is not accredited to CHEA. I have found nowhere on CHEA's site a claim by CHEA that they list candidates. If you google for the word "candidate", limiting to www.chea.org, there are only twelve results that include the word candidate. To my eyes none of them are a claim that CHEA tries to keep track of candidates. I believe that I have more than proven that CHEA does not do what you believe it does. If you can prove me wrong, show some evidence, don't insert a bare link to CHEA's home page. GRBerry 01:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is certification and accreditation the same? Do you have a source from ANY accreditor that it is a canidate? Being a canidate is a long process (miniumu 5 years) and you must meet basic standards. We have no proof of this. All you have is some website claiming it wants accreditation. That doesn't cut it for a encycolpedia. Arbusto 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Legally operating?

Can anyone confirm this place can legally issue degrees in Texas? I ask becausein another article, the head of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board says schools must be accredited in Texas.

"LaSalle University of Louisiana was an institution that did offer degrees for less than college level work required. They basically were a fraudulent or substandard institution. In fact it was closed down by the federal government," David Linkletter of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board said.

Borrer completed the Ph.D. through a distance education program by completing coursework online. For online degree programs there are no hard rules of regulation, except accreditation. In Texas, using an unaccredited degree is against the law.

"As of Sept. 1, 2005 it is a crime, a misdemeanor, to use a fraudulent or sub-standard degree to promote a business to seek employment or ask extra compensation," Linkletter said.

Arbusto 03:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is this news? Is this relevant? How many more statements do we need that the school is not yet accredited? Alansohn 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If the legality of an institution cannot be confirmed that leads to WP:V issues. As such, articles with WP:V issues that will mislead readers should be removed. Arbusto 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Article under attack!

Despite two successive failed AfDs, and despite the fact that the most recent AfD closed with "no consensus, leaning to keep" with a substatntial majority voting to keep, the same crowd of deletionists has started at it again. With the worst of bad faith, notability tags were applied just over 24 hours after the previous attack against the article failed. Despite satisfying every aspect of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CORP, the usual deletionist clique, led by Arbusto is refusing to accept his previous two failures. All Wikipedians with any shred of decency should stand up to this attempt to take a third crack at deleting a prefectly valid article. Alansohn 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is simple: offer compelling proof of notability. The only reason this article exists is because enough people, who just happen to monitor the school watch page that you added this article to and constantly vote keep, influenced the discussion to no consensus-- NOT keep.

Thus, there is no consensus it is notable. Arbusto 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

DO you even believe the nonsense you write. Despite persistent attacks from deletionists, and despite the vendetta you seem to have against this school, and despite the fact that many of the delete votes are from people who vote to delete anything put before them in an AfD, both of your attempts at deletion failed. While your first attempt was a roughly balanced "no consensus", your second attempt was "no consensus, leaning to keep", with a strong majority of participants indicating that the article should be retained. Those participating and voting to keep seem to be seeing that there is a strong case to be made to keep the article and that your persistent (if not obsessive) attempts at deleting this article just don't hold water. It's time to move on to find other articles that don't pass your arbitrary tests which might be more likely to succumb to your tactics. Alansohn 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus it is notable. Do you have a source that is proof otherwise? Arbusto 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Misleading edits re certification

Not again. In trying to malign the school, Arbusto has edited the article in the section about accreditation to read "It's website claims to be seeking certification in Texas..." In his attempt at inserting his own personal bias, Arbustoo seems to be implying that the website is in the process of seeking certification; usually, it's schools that seek such certification. While using weasel words in general is frowned upon in general, in this case it's far more egregious as part of a blatant POV attack on the article. The statement is explicitly sourced as is. If anyone has any information to the contrary, it should be corrected, with an appropriate source provided. Alansohn 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is sourced to its website, and thus is presented that way. If you have a independent source to confirm it then it should be worded differently. Arbusto 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I corrected it to say: "Its website claims that the institute is seeking certification in Texas through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)." JChap2007 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto, I think you fail to understand that you are imposing your own personal biases and point of view into this article. The word "claims" is a classic weasel word, that attempts to undermine the neutral statement regarding its plans. Unfortunately, the majority of your edits have been in blatant violation of WP:POV. If you can't deal with this subject with some measure of neutrality, it may be time to walk away and move on to other battles.

OK, I see you have corrected your comment to clarify you were talking to Arbusto and not to me. Accordingly, I will strike out the remainder of my reply. For future reference, it is better to edit comments you have previously made so that it is clear you have changed them and others' responses don't puzzle third parties. JChap2007 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As to your second sentence, read WP:RS. As to the rest of your comment, why don't you try actually discussing which of my edits you think are in "blatant violation" of WP:POV rather than making conclusory statements, or if you cannot do this rationally, maybe you should walk away.JChap2007 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again (though I will address the word "claims", as well, later): Arbusto, I think you fail to understand that you are imposing your own personal biases and point of view into this article. The word "claims" is a classic weasel word, that attempts to undermine the neutral statement regarding its plans. Unfortunately, the majority of your edits have been in blatant violation of WP:POV. If you can't deal with this subject with some measure of neutrality, it may be time to walk away and move on to other battles. (end of comment to Arbusto/oo). As to the website being a reliable source, WP:RS states "Self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about in articles about the writers/publishers of those sources, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote them, and where the material is: 1) relevant to the self-publisher's notability; 2) not contentious; 3) not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; 4) about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject; The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all." A statement that the school is planning to pursue accreditation is sufficiently neutral to meet this WP:RS standard. There are several other statements in the article that are sourced from the organization's website where the word "claims" has not been inserted. I guess you could rationalize a statement that says the school's website claims that Corley was awarded both a Master of Divinity (M.Div.) and Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary or (a bit more offensively) that the organization claims on its website that it aims to "serve Christ in the diverse and global ministries of His church". The source is explicitly from the website, there is nothing that hides it, and the use of the word "claims" is inherently POV. Alansohn 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would look closely at 3) in your statement. Organizations (and not just this one) often talk about their plans for the future; some of which are more realistic than others. It's not that the organizations are lying per se, but their "plans" are often more aspirational than achievable. That's why it is important to qualify such statements when we don't have anything tangible other than the organization's assertion that such things are "planned." JChap2007 02:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly as JChap put it. Arbusto 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

SACS

I think it's useful to mention that Carroll is trying to get accredited by this body. Many religious schools develop complex rationales for not seeking accreditation from this body, whose accreditation brings a certain amount of prestige but that demands standards of academic freedom that are incompatible with how many religious institutions operate. Of course, we should be careful not to imply that they have made much progress, until such progress is reported in a reliable source. BTW, do we know what the other three bodies it is seeking accreditation from are? JChap2007 03:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)