| Revision as of 22:08, 6 December 2005 editDanlovejoy (talk | contribs)460 edits →Please look at my edit history← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:53, 13 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,020 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (107 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| == Editing and reverting this page == | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | |||
| You don't just go around reverting entire articles. Take out the stuff you think is vandalism and leave the rest. | |||
| {{WikiProject Oklahoma|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Higher education}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| == Title IX Exemption == | |||
| : Umm. Yes, Mr. <s>OU</s> Anonymous. I do go around reverting extensive vandalism. Adding one useful fact to a flood of vandalism does not immunize your edits from revert. ] 01:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The concise inclusion of Oklahoma Christian University's Title IX exemption is in line with Misplaced Pages policies listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. The following specific Misplaced Pages policies prohibit editing of this brief and relevant statement that is cited with a link to the US Department of Education's website. | |||
| "OU"? Huh. Nice try on being Mr. Investigator. Now it wasn't too hard to figure out you're a far right-winger who cruises the Internet and Misplaced Pages looking for ways to spread ultraconservative propaganda and attempting to erase comments from the most random of pages that you deem offensive to a close-minded and puritan mindset. After all, we wouldn’t want anything bad said about Christians, even if it’s true. | |||
| '''Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion''' | |||
| : I guess I could make anonymous edits and hide my edit trail, but I don't think that's ethical. I'm puzzled by your accusation (far right winger?!) but that's neither here nor there. | |||
| 4. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Misplaced Pages articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Misplaced Pages neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Misplaced Pages to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Misplaced Pages. See also Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. | |||
| : I do not dispute the neutrality of the article at present, Mr. Anonymous. Do you? ] 16:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: The vandal is from OU. I apologize for assuming you were the vandal. ] 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''Misplaced Pages is not censored''' | |||
| The neutrality of this article may have to become disputed again, as it seems a sole employee of OC has reverted not just all of the edits by students from IP addresses, but some legitimate edits as well. | |||
| Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. | |||
| : I could very easily log in under a psuedonym, or like you, not log in at all. Rather, I make my edits under my real name. I stand by my edits and invite readers to assess them on the merits. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The Wheaton and Pepperdine comments were well within the realm of appropriate. | |||
| : They may not be vandalism, but they are are inaccurate. There is no attempt to emulate these universities. Look at the documents I referenced. You could say that the OC Covenant is reminiscent of Wheaton's but there's no official or unoffical policy to emulate them. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I looked at one of the vandals' blogs, DarkEyed (www.xanga.com/DarkEyed), and apparently, this very kind of behavior by members of the OC administration is the cause of some frustration. | |||
| : What behavior? The current administration is far and away the most open and engaged of any administration in the history of the institution. Even if it were not, does this justify vandalism? ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Misplaced Pages is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed. | |||
| Furthermore, the OC employee has violated several unofficial rules - like being the only person or couple of people to edit an entry, | |||
| : I can't be "a couple of people" and I can't help who does or does not edit this page. As far as I know ] also works on this page quite a bit. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| reverting several times a day rather than once a day, | |||
| : You're referring to the ]. I suggest you read it. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Misplaced Pages:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive. | |||
| having a conflict of interest as an employee where he makes the edits, etc. | |||
| : I can be considered an expert on the university, and I have added not one word of POV. I stand by my edit history and would encourage readers to monitor me in this. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Misplaced Pages, because Misplaced Pages is not a member of those organizations; thus, Misplaced Pages will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. | |||
| And apparently, he is too much into this stuff. On his blog, he complains about how "evil" some people on the Internet are, and he prides himself on his Wiki user page for reverting vandalism on several pages. | |||
| : I don't see how this is relevant. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The policy that Misplaced Pages is not censored also contains the following quote which is longer than the one-sentence Title IX addition: | |||
| There are some fairly strange Misplaced Pages articles that he has gone to and voted to delete, which makes me wonder if he just patrols Misplaced Pages looking for speech contrary to his morals. | |||
| "The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views." - Clark Kerr, President of the University of California (1961) | |||
| : Please give examples. Do you suppose ], or perhaps ]? ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages isn't for carrying out personal crusades of morality. | |||
| : Absolutely, so point out a single instance where I've done this. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| He also blanket reverts a lot of vandalism without checking to see if some of the comments are useful (some of them are), which is another violation of some of the more unofficial rules of editing at Misplaced Pages. | |||
| : Which rule? Nope - putting in a fact or two does not immunize your edits from revert if they are vandalism. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Citation from https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not | |||
| He's also apparently warned numerous people to quit vandalizing the OC page, some of whom never even vandalized the page | |||
| "Former UC President Clark Kerr, a national leader in higher education, dies at 92" (Press release). UC Berkeley. December 2, 2003. Retrieved August 5, 2021. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : No, one person. And I apologized. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| yet at the same time he calls on others to assume "good faith" while simultaneously assuming bad faith on the part of others who had done nothing to merit such animosity. | |||
| : Please look at my admonitions to vandals and tell me I'm not assuming Good Faith. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == OC Trustees == | |||
| In one instance, he actually asked other users to go to the user page of an individual and all tell that person to quit vanalizing solely for the purpose of expiditing the mechanical rules for banishing someone. | |||
| The update to the OC Trustees is concise and cited with an appropriate link at https://www.oc.edu/about/president/board-of-trustees. The veracity of this claim is clear from the listing of each organization the trustee represents on the OC Board of Trustees webpage. Misplaced Pages's policies for censorship and editing by paid editors representing corporations should be followed and this should not be reverted. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| If this kind of abusive behavior doesn't discontinue, someone might need a timeout. His job specifically involves marketing OC on the web - and while there's nothing wrong with that - Misplaced Pages isn't the place for it. | |||
| :"University has board of trustees and they support the university's policies" is not information that adds anything to this article or informs readers of anything that isn't already patently obvious. Should we also add a sentence to the article telling readers that the university employs faculty who teach classes, too? ] (]) 01:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I suggest you look at the and submit my behavior for evaluation by other editors and administrators. ] 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: The claim that the board has representatives of various organisations is not backed up by the source cited. That someone is affiliated with an organisation does not mean they represent that organisation; that requires a source saying that they have been appointed as representatives of those organisations on the board (presumably in a manner similar to the Court of a British university). The claim that "OC's policies have a wide base of support" does not appear to be supported by any citation; it certainly cannot be deduced from the existence of the Board of Directors – even if true, this would be ]. ] (]) 04:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == POV == | |||
| :::Agreed with Robminchin that the given reference doesn't come close to supporting the claim in the text that {{tq|OC's policies have a wide base of support}}. I do think that a comprehensive university article ought to mention (with suitable references) if it's governed by a board of trustees, though—it's an important part of the university's structure, even if not particularly distinctive. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 06:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| What is POV about the article? How should we move forward to remove the POV tag? ] 16:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree with ElKevbo and Robminchin that the claim is not supported by the references. Trustees at all universities are often affiliated with organizations and companies, that does not mean that those organization and companies support the mission statement of the university, particularly if it is religious in nature. The most that can be said given the current resources is that there is a Board of Trustees and that members of the Board are affiliated with several national companies and orgs, certainly nothing about support of policies. ] (]) 07:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Our unregistered colleague disagrees and is to ]. ] (]) 04:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Neutrality == | ||
| Does anyone else think that this article is very self-promotional in places? There is already a message in place in the "Campus" section, but I am seeing it in other places throughout the article as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there was conflict of interest by faculty or other involved parties editing this page. Anyone have any thoughts? ] (]) 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| No way am I reading between the lines to find all of your comments again. I’m not about to spend an hour trying to respond between the lines like that, regardless of how many rules I might be breaking by responding like this instead. As a result, none of my paragraphs below flow together coherently. Each is just a response to each of your individual responses. | |||
| Let’s see, the Covenant is borrowed from Wheaton. Mike O’Neal is borrowed from Pepperdine. The Diversity Summit from a couple years ago along with the speaker, borrowed from Pepperdine. The SGA passing a resolution regarding government spending towards AIDS in Africa, borrowed from Wheaton. Ken Starr and Art Linkletter speaking at OC, borrowed from Pepperdine. Graduating from OC and not being able to disassociate yourself from the “cool” high school mentality of the campus and sticking around to work in the Student Life office and possibly date a student, that’s borrowed from Pepperdine. Now, appointing an ombudsman after a string of controversies – the biggest of which involved the guy to later be appointed as ombudsman – that’s not copying Pepperdine or Wheaton. That’s just transparent bad faith – which seems to be the de facto policy of OC’s administration. | |||
| I reread my comments. Nowhere did I say vandalism was justified. The administration does provoke vandalism from students (since it appears all the vandals are students) my suppressing thought at every turn. Everything OC does is the loud trumpet of its own clique to the disadvantage of its marginalized student body. Check the OC website. Several student blogs are listed, and all from the established group. Meanwhile, the blogs from the marginalized students have to be quite a headache for the administration. All that free speech out there could send the wrong message. Of course, the administration and the clique of students that are in tune with the administration consider that speech to be “hateful” rather than overblown comments that might at their core of some element of truth. | |||
| Yeah, you and Ichabod would count as a person or a couple of people. Rather than admitting the obvious, you’d like to ignore the merits of the argument and pay attention to a pointless grammatical detail. Since I know you’re not a complete idiot, I know you understand what I was actually saying and that your comments were in bad faith, a recurring theme for you. And, yes, I understand you can’t control who edits the entry. That doesn’t change anything. If not enough people are editing this entry, then perhaps it needs to be deleted until OC becomes a relevant topic worth an encyclopedic entry. | |||
| Wrong. I was referring to the disputed/unofficial policy on not feeding the trolls. Save your sarcasm for someone else. | |||
| I contacted several OC alumni, all of whom are in or have completed graduate (including medical or law) school. All agreed that your edits are POV. And I suppose you could be considered an expert on the university, just like I could be considered an expert on yo mama. But I’m not writing an article about her am I? (No, Dan, I’m not really an expert on yo mama. Wipe the sweat of your brow, and stop looking for the tag for personal attacks. I’m just making a point.) | |||
| I love the irony. Your inability to “see” the relevance of evidence is the very essence of bias. | |||
| Let’s see, there’s a vote for deletion on “Crap Os”. You seemed quite zealous in your efforts to remove “vodka and coke.” There were also some others you voted to delete, including a page dedicated to some strange use of the word “boner.” In any event, your argument here has at least three problems. First, pages that have been deleted are removed from your list of contributions, thus destroying the evidence. Second, I never said all of your votes to delete stemmed from morality issues, so your attempt to satirize my argument is useless and pathetic. Thirdly, I shouldn’t have to inform you of the pages you have deleted on moral grounds. If I do need to inform you of your own edits, then (a), you probably aren’t smart enough to be editing encyclopedic information, or (b) you have resorted to yet another bad faith tactic. | |||
| If you could explain this undue disdain for the spirit of editing at Misplaced Pages, it would be helpful. Any time there is a suggested method of handling problems or a guideline that is not an explicit Misplaced Pages policy, to this point you have chosen to completely ignore it. What makes the OC article better - completely deleting all comments from a vandal or retaining any information the vandalism might have contained that would be appropriate? | |||
| I have looked. You are not assuming good faith. Reporting someone who hasn’t vandalized can in no way be construed as good faith. | |||
| I suggest you look at this blog: http://www.xanga.com/MichaelHefner. Looks like another OC student is speaking poorly of OC on the web. Better revert his blog. | |||
| As a final note, you should also consider whether Misplaced Pages is intended to be elitist. I seriously doubt that it is. I make edits on Misplaced Pages from time to time from numerous IP addresses depending on where I am at. Most of this edits have only been a sentence or two though I have written over a dozen articles. I don’t want to be a user or an administrator or anything else on Misplaced Pages. I use Misplaced Pages for very basic research or for learning some trivia when I can, and I make edits whenever I see a place where I can add something. To this point, I have been able to make all of these edits without anyone worrying about the nuisances regarding the rules and my edits. Users like you attempting to browbeat others with the rulebook discourage others from using Misplaced Pages and from making legitimate edits. | |||
| : First of all - let's get this out of the way, anonymous. Are you an anonymous sockpuppet of ]? Because there's no reference to her blog anywhere but here on Misplaced Pages, but you seem to know where it is. Or are you in some sort of collaboration with her to vandalize the page? | |||
| : I am not going to respond again point by point here, but I'll let other Wikipedians decide for themselves the merits of your arguments. Outside of reverts to blatant vandalism, I have made very few edits to the OC article. The latest, removing "widely panned" from the covenant and a specific comment that OC is trying to emulate Wheaton and Pepperdine are the only ones you actually seem to have a problem with. Perhaps we should revisit the wording on those and come up with some consensus text. I DO stand by my edits and ask others to look at my history for themselves. Furthermore, if there is a vast groundswell of discontent from alumni with this article as it is, I suggest someone edit it, rather than vandalize it. | |||
| : You are obviously very intelligent and a good writer. If you think there are problems with the article, go ahead and make changes to it. ] 16:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: I didn’t respond because there was nothing to respond to. I made several arguments that went without refutation. You attempted to refute a few arguments, but I was able to counter those attempts. You let nearly all your arguments get hammered without any defense of them. I exposed several serious problems in your credibility, which you conveniently ignored. | |||
| :: You just started your next response by basically accusing me of being a “sockpuppet” of DarkEyed. (And for reasons I won’t get in to, I can tell you that DarkEyed (Xanga) and DarkEyed (Wikipedian) are not the same person.) As I’ve tried to explain to you already with limited success, I’ve created a few articles and updated a few articles in a proper manner. But I mainly use Misplaced Pages to learn some trivia or look up very basic information. I don’t know what sockpuppets are or how to mask IP addresses or of that other kind of stuff. If baseless accusations are all you have left, there’s no reason for me to respond. | |||
| :: I did notice a couple of responses from outside individuals though. Pay particular attention to the line by IronDuke, “It reads a bit too much like a brochure.” Isn’t that the whole point of the NPOV dispute? The article is being written almost exclusively by the guy whose job (perhaps among other things) is to market OC on the web. Basically, you’ve written a promotional guided-tour version of OC. | |||
| :: And as a side note tangential to the Misplaced Pages discussion, your editing and behavior here on indicative of why OC may not be around in 50 years. OC can continue down this path of intellectual dishonesty, ignoring a past of racial tension, financial struggles, athletic and administrative ethical lapses, etc. The bureaucracy and tuition can continue to grow, peripheral students can continue to be ignored, and expression can crushed. But let me suggest to you that this is a plan for a university’s self-destruction. | |||
| :: The saddest part is that most people at OC involved in the decision-making have good intentions. Unfortunately, whether a bad idea is the child of good intentions or bad intentions, it’s still a bad idea. Good intentions – it has been said – pave the road to hell. | |||
| :: OC can learn from the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Challenger explosion, and the ill-fated invasion of Iraq. A lot of plans throughout history started with good intentions, but without any critical analysis or outside thought, those good intentions led to disastrous results. I can’t keep you from aiding in the destruction of OC, but I can ask you not to do it on Misplaced Pages. ] 19:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Anonymous - please. The young lady is a different lady with the same psuedonym? She writes derisively about this discussion on her eponymous blog? But she's a different person? The coincidence, it boggles the mind, really. If you want to cover for her, just remove the reference to her blog. Nobody cares. | |||
| ::: And the Bay of Pigs? That's your historical lesson. More air support? | |||
| ::: I'm not responding to you point by point because I just don't get it. Why attack me? It's pointless to attack me like this, and it's pointlesss for me to go on tit-for-tatting you. I don't have any more power here than you. Make your changes, support them, and everyone gets behind you, if you're right. If you have a problem with the article, change it, or make an RFC. If you have a problem with my behavior, make an RFC. If you want to write about any given topic, do it! Just leave me out of it, please. | |||
| ::: Finally, once again, I fully stand by my edits, even my paltry ones to this article. I'd ask anyone who reads this discussion to please look at ] and judge for yourself. I have written less than 5% of this article. I have added a couple of facts and made a few text edits. Look at the history and judge for yourselves. While you're at it, look at the rest of my history and decide if I'm a right wing nutjob intent on imposing my morals on Misplaced Pages. I did, after all, vote to merge ] with ]. | |||
| ::: So far, all you seem interested in is attacking me. You obviously have an ax to grind, and I'm not interested in being your whetstone. So, this will be my last response to you. | |||
| ::: But I do wish you well - really, the very best! I hope you will redirect your energies into something more useful, something constructive. It's very easy to anonymously critcize, to tear down, to carp, to gossip, to whine, and to feel superior because you're part of the cynical minority. It's very hard to actually stand up and do something about the problems in this world. If you have a problem with OC, you can make an appointment with the head man just about any day of the week. His email address is all over the web site. He'll answer your email in about 30 minutes, in my experience. Go forth and do something. Make a difference. (And leave me out of it. ;-) ) ] 04:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would say the POV tag should be removed (and frankly, I'm having trouble figuring out why this is a huge issue), but I would add a tag indicating that the article still needs a lot of work. Much of the prose is wooden, and it reads a bit too much like a brochure. "Resurrecting the basketball team?" Hmmmm. As a thought experiment, maybe editors could ask themselves, "What would this entry look like in a paper encyclopedia?" ] 02:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm also confused as to the merit of the NPOV tag. I'm sure there are some edits that can be made to improve the tone of the article but I don't see any serious content dispute here. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==New edit== | |||
| Okay, I cleaned some stuff up, and added a little sourced bit at the end about Christianity and evolution(and fixed an error that I myself inserted). ] 05:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : You might want to say that the full-time, tenure-tracked faculty are required to be members of the church of Christ. Saying that they are required to be Christian might be NPOV and a little misleading to people who aren't members of the churches of Christ. ] 03:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for the heads-up. Made the change. ] 20:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing content on November 24, 2005 == | |||
| I have now twice reverted edits made to this article, since they seem to be unencyclopaedic, and they fail to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy of ]. Content such as "'' It's really a suck ass policy''" and "''men caught entering into the women's dorms are often tortured by OC security''" lead me to believe that this information if also factually incorrect. Entering such sensational information would require a reference to be cited, at least, and without such it could be construed as ]. Cheers. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Cite sources == | |||
| Please cite your source for "OC ranks poorly compared to other colleges in the state in these categories." | |||
| I checked the ''Daily Oklahoman'' back through 1983: | |||
| *"Officials at '''Oklahoma Christian University''' have announced the establishment of the Joe McCormack Endowment for International Studies. University officials said the endowment will fund the McCormack Scholars Program and the McCormack Lectures. The scholarship program will award money annually to international students. It also will provide scholarships to students participating in the university's official international study programs with preference given to minority students." — ''The Daily Oklahoman'', November 15, 2005 | |||
| *"The percent, by school, of first-time, full-time students who began at four-year institutions in 1997 and graduated within six years: ... | |||
| :'''Oklahoma Christian University''', Edmond 31.1% ... | |||
| :Overall average of the 27 institutions 36.8%" — ''The Daily Oklahoman'', July 24, 2005 | |||
| *The U.S. News survey also ranked colleges based on regions of the country, and Oklahoma schools fall into the western division. In that division, Oklahoma Baptist University rated second and '''Oklahoma Christian University''' ranked seventh among comprehensive colleges offering bachelor's degrees. — ''The Daily Oklahoman'', August 24, 2003 | |||
| *For the fifth year in a row, '''Oklahoma Christian University''' has been ranked in the Top 10 on a list of best colleges in a 16-state region. Oklahoma Christian was ranked No. 7 on a list of best comprehensive colleges in the Western region by ''U.S. News & World Report''. The groupings were released online late Thursday and will be published Sept. 1 in the magazine's 2004 best college rankings. —''The Daily Oklahoman'', August 22, 2003 | |||
| *"He has initiated a diversity committee and is attempting to make sure that '''Oklahoma Christian''' offers Christian education to all people. He hosted a one-day diversity conference in January attended by about 50 people, many of them members of black Churches of Christ and Hispanic Churches of Christ. O'Neal sought their ideas on how the school can better recruit young people to attend their churches. This is a particularly key issue for O'Neal. 'Our institutions have not done as good a job at serving minority communities,' he said." —The Daily Oklahoman, July 5, 2003 | |||
| *Oklahoma Baptist University and '''Oklahoma Christian University''' were ranked among the top 10 liberal arts universities in the West in the U.S. News College Guide. ... The magazine bases its rankings on academic reputation, graduation and retention rates, faculty resources, financial resources, class sizes and alumni donations. This marks the ninth consecutive year for Oklahoma Baptist to be listed in the regional top 10. It is the second time for Oklahoma Christian. —''The Daily Oklahoman'', September 2, 2000 | |||
| — ] 22:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, I forgot the latest US News ranking: | |||
| *"One Oklahoma school got a No. 1 spot among the lists of best colleges ranked by ''U.S. News & World Report''. ... Several Oklahoma privates scored well on that list, with Oklahoma Baptist University ranking second (behind Oregon's Linfield College), '''Oklahoma Christian University''' ranking 7th and Oklahoma Wesleyan University ranking 13th." — ''The Daily Oklahoman'', August 20, 2005. ] 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| All of the above looks legit- why not put a summary of it in? | |||
| ] 01:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Uh oh. A collision with the facts. Never good for one whose mind is already made up. ;-) Here are some more links that might be useful (consider the ]) | |||
| :: | |||
| :: http://blogs.oc.edu/ee/index.php?/ocnews/amy_janzen_to_direct_freshmen_programs/ | |||
| :: http://blogs.oc.edu/ee/index.php?/campuscommunity/an_cat/record_enrollment_totals_confirmed/ | |||
| :: A little info on : | |||
| :: http://www.oc.edu/president/diversity/Diversity%20Initiative%20Conference%20Follow-up.pdf | |||
| :: http://www.oc.edu/president/diversity/Notes%20from%20Diversity%20Initiative%20Meeting.pdf | |||
| :: http://lists.oc.edu/wws/d_read/talonstories/Stories%201-14-05/Martin%20Luther%20King%20Jr.%20Day%20Obrserved%20in%20Chapel.htm | |||
| :: There's LOTS and lots more out there. I probably need to organize it better. But it's certainly Googleable. | |||
| :: Minority retention is certainly below goals, partly because the administration implemented an aggressive scholarship program for under-served students without fully understanding their needs. We have seen improvements there as well as we have done a better job at recruiting. I don't know if those numbers are available, but I'll try to get them. | |||
| :: Thanks to all of you who are working on this article. ] 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == WRONG! == | |||
| Your first source upholds the part of the paragraph saying that efforts are being made. The second source upholds the controversial paragraph. 31.1% is terrible. The US News and Reports ranking of OC are not the ranking of its graduation, retention, or transfer rates, though they may play some limited role in determining that overall ranking. So again, this source does not change the merits of the statement that OC ranks poorly in retaining and graduating students. Then your next statement about O’Neal’s efforts again just confirms the first part of the paragraph in question. Then we have yet another US News and World Report quote which is completely dubious. Graduation and retention rates are only a small part of the ranking, and the category that OC is in does not include all the schools in Oklahoma. It doesn’t include OU, OSU, Southeastern, and several other schools. So don’t pretend like that source in any way negates the paragraph in question. And then the last source is so vague it can be in no way construed as having any real connection to the Misplaced Pages paragraph. So thanks for wasting everyone’s time by pretending like the paragraph is not accurate. | |||
| Rather than meddling in crap you clearly don’t know about – just move on. You’re just causing trouble. The churches of Christ do not traditionally capitalize “church”. Knock if off! | |||
| As for Dan, well, he’s spreading his ridiculous nonsense on here as usual. Look at this weak crap. A link from a blogger, which again, does not compare OC retention, transfer, and graduation rates to other schools – it only compares OC’s current rates to its past rates. Blah, blah, blah – the usual Dan crap. | |||
| The real deal: | |||
| (this is not a comprehensive list, and it doesn’t match up all the schools by year, but I think you get the general idea) | |||
| OC (74% retention, 31.1% graduation) | |||
| OBU (80% retention, 47% graduation) | |||
| OSU (+80% retention, +55% graduation) | |||
| OU (83% graduation, 47.4% graduation) | |||
| In-state average (graduation 51.6%) | |||
| http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/minutes/Main%20Ret.htm | |||
| http://blogs.oc.edu/ee/index.php?/campuscommunity/an_cat/record_enrollment_totals_confirmed/ | |||
| http://www2.okstate.edu/pio/enrollment2.html | |||
| ] 05:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Why the vitriol? "OC ranks poorly compared to other colleges in the state in these categories," is POV unless you provide a source for the statement. An NPOV statement would say something like; "For the 2004/2005 school year, Oklahoma Christian University had a graduation rate of 31.1% compared to the state average of 36.8%". You would still need to provide a source for the statement and even the facts can be POV when taken out of context. To show context you would also have to say something like; "The higestet ranked public institution in the state is Oklahoma State University with a graduation rate of 58.3% with the highest private institution being Metropolitan College in Oklahoma City at 70.6%. The lowest ranked, respectively, are Oklahoma Panhandle State University with 5.0% and Bacone College with 12.5%." And even this is POV unless you balance these statements with something like; "In the 2005 ''U.S. News & World Report's'' College Guide, Oklahoma Christion University, ranked seventh in the Western district. ''U.S. News'' bases its rankings on academic reputation, graduation and retention rates, faculty resources, financial resources, class sizes and alumni donations. OC has ranked consistently in the top 10 during the last ?? years." As for the capitaization of "]", that style agrees with the main article and also with proper English. I found this article on a ] hunt, and, even though I have absolutely no interest in religious schools, I could see that someone was coming close to a whack job on this one. Just take a look at the ] 21:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, OC ranks poorly compared to other colleges in those categories, when backed up with statstics, is very POV. I think something should be done to try to eliminate the "reality POV" on Misplaced Pages. I think this comment would be a lot better: "Despite graduating less than one-third of their students, OC has very good retention rates...FOR ME TO POOP ON!" My unofficial vote is for deletion. Oh, and I also want to officially give a thumbs up to ], the free speech Nazi. If I were him, I wouldn't put my mug up on my user page. I wouldn't want people all over the world to know what an adult-sized titty-baby looks like. ] 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Contact info == | |||
| AFAIK Misplaced Pages does not usually have contact information for organizations (website links aside). ] <sup>]</sup> 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Lovejoy is Wrong == | |||
| I think that the user who is arguing with Dan is correct. I've been keeping an eye on the situation with the Oklahoma Christian page and I can't say that Dan is making any sense at all. Most of his arguments actually support the idea that OC has worse numbers than other schools in the state. The US News and World Report - a favorite of the OC administration - is not a valid source for this discussion since, as was previously pointed out, it does not rank institutions specific to this discussion. The comment made was that OC ranks poorly with respect to other institutions in the state. None of what Dan has said negates that. As a matter of fact, his own citation of OC's 31.1% retention rate compared to the 37% for the other schools in the state upholds the claim in the article. I truly can't figure out what Lovejoy's point is. OC lacks in some areas - can that not be a part of this encylopedic entry, or are we to assume that an encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages is only a forum for positive review? The facts here have not been contested. The facts need to be allowed since they are, in fact, factual. | |||
| Additionally, Dan, your demeanor and tone needs a serious adjustment. You come across poorly. You seem snide, rude, and condescending in your posts. I suggest that you find a way to approach these discussions in a more polite, Christian manner. Moreover, I understand that your paid position at Oklahoma Christian University is to direct all internet advertising and marketing, but that does not give you the right to delete all negative input from Misplaced Pages. If someone did that on the OC webpage, which you maintain, you would have every right to do that. However, wikipedia is not YOUR property. It is OUR property. If we feel that something significant should be added to the page and it is factual, you need to come up with a valid reason for deleting it. Yes, your job is to produce a positive image of OC on the internet. However, Misplaced Pages is not a place for advertisement. | |||
| Finally, I'd like to say that I also feel like this page should be removed from Misplaced Pages in its entirety. This has turned into more of a hassle for the Misplaced Pages community than it is worth. It is obvious that at this point, vandals are posting on here for the specific reason of irritating Dan and Ichabod. As immature as that may be, it is obviously what is happening. They haven't stopped in about 4 weeks and I see no end in sight. OC hasn't made it in any other encyclopedia that I am aware of. Why not delete the page? It is poorly written and contains little useful information to start with. The OC page has turned into a joke. Let's stop giving the vandals the satisfaction of irritating the community. Let's ALSO stop giving Dan a platform to push propaganda. His eternally positive endorsement of the school is 100% as biased as the negative junk posted by the vandals. | |||
| In conclusion, I am all for deleting the page in its entirety. If it is not going to be deleted, I feel that the negative comment regarding retention rates MUST be allowed. It is factual (even by Dan's inadvertant admission) and every bit as pertainent to a potential student as knowing who donated the land for the school. It must stand. | |||
| == Please look at my edit history == | |||
| First of all Misplaced Pages policy is to capitalize "]." See the ] for more info on that. | |||
| I am distressed that *I* have become an issue on this page, therefore I have not recently edited the main page. I did provide some links and information on the Talk page. Surely no one can have a problem with that. | |||
| I'd ask everyone, especially real Wikipedians who are reading this page to please look at ] and judge for yourselves about my edits on this page, and to the Misplaced Pages as a whole. The irrefutable fact is that I've made VERY few edits to this page, outside of reverts to overt vandalism. Other than that, I have made ONE possibly controversial edit which has never been challenged on the merits. I even offered to work out compromise language on that ONE edit. Nobody responded with compromise language, RfC, or any of the standard Misplaced Pages methods for resolving conflicts. All I got back was more personal attacks and bile. | |||
| Nevertheless, I'm accused of "WikiMarketing," "deleting everything negative" about OC and "Advertising" on the page. I have done none of these things. ]. | |||
| I see nothing wrong with adding info to the Talk page and providing links. It is up to the editors of the page to take them or leave them. Please cease these unfair and completely spurious attacks. ] 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree with the nomination to delete this page. We're talking about a very minor school, and the entire page has really just become a place to serve as a forum for OC employees and students to fight it out over vandalizing the page (students) and POV-ing the page (employees). It's completely pathetic, and again, I must place more blame on the employees. I would expect this from students, but from school administrators? It's just sad. At least the students are open about their POV in their vandalism. The employees try to conceal their bias, which is much worse. They try to deceive people just like the Bush administration - by pretending that falsehoods are facts. The worse offender has to be ], who seems to have deliberately circumvented the spirit of Misplaced Pages with the intent of working the vandals into a frenzy. Whatever happened to the Misplaced Pages stance of "not feeding the vandals"? ] 22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Where? How? Point to an example in my edit history. Enough with this unsupported, anonymous assertions. ] 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Since Dan is apparently unaware of his own actions, let me remind him. By my unofficial count, Dan has edited the OC page 20 times. At least 10 of his edits were efforts to revert vandalism. At least 3 times, Dan has edited the page in succession. | |||
| : To do what? Update enrollment figures? Is there something nefarious about editing the page more than one time in a sitting? ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It looks like on about 12 occasions he has warned people about vandalizing the OC page, threatened people with punishment | |||
| : I don't have the authority or the capability to punish anyone. I have used the Misplaced Pages templates for warning vandals, following Misplaced Pages spirit and policy. ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| for editing the OC page, or asked others to punish people vandalizing the OC page. | |||
| : I did ask one user to warn a vandal. There's no "punishment" involved. This is also consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| He has falsely accused at least two people of being vandals, | |||
| : One person by my count, and I did apologize. ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| and he has removed other people’s comments from talk pages regarding OC edits (a no-no at Misplaced Pages). | |||
| : You're talking about yet another anonymous personal attack you added about something completely irrelevant to the Misplaced Pages on MY Talk page. When I informed you that I was going to ignore you here, you decided to attack me on my talk page. I don't have to put up with this stuff on MY OWN TALK page. | |||
| : And if it is wrong, (And adding personal insults, to boot) ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| He also falsely claimed that OC’s retention rates being poor compared to those of the state at large were someone’s biases in collision with the facts. Oh, how I love irony. And judging by the time of day he edits his blog and OC-Wiki page, it looks like he spends both work and home time on this personal endeavor. Or is it a professional endeavor? It is hard to tell if an OC employee in charge of marketing OC on the internet making edits on OC time is, in fact, working in his capacity as an OC employee. | |||
| : I didn't claim anything. I put up some links on the TALK page. So just for the record, that is the end of your criticisms of my ''actual edits'' to the OC article. Everything from here down is typical confused, hateful bile. Furthermore, you don't know about my work arrangements, so don't presume to tell me how to do my job. This is way over the line. ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| And when will Dan stop resorting to the straw man of “anonymous”. There are a ton of anonymous editors at Misplaced Pages. Because you choose not to be anonymous doesn’t mean other people can’t. And if arguments weren’t anonymous, would that change the substance of the arguments? | |||
| : I don't think that word ('straw man') means what you think it means. I'm just saying that I'm here, editing under my own name, with my biases out in the open, while you consistently employ personal attacks from an anonymous IP. And you presume to lecture me on ethics. Yes, it is ironic. ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Dan, tell me again – why did you post all of those links about diversity at OC? I’m quite certain that the original paragraph contained the fact that Mike O’Neal was trying to improve diversity issues at OC. And, of course, we dare not even think of what OC’s retention of homosexual students might be (they count as diversity in most of the civilized world as well). And tell me again, why did you include the links comparing OC’s retention rates to OC’s past retention rates? I’m quite certain the paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article was comparing OC’s retention rates to other schools in OK. | |||
| : If you or other editors don't like sources I provide on the TALK page, feel free to ignore them. This isn't about ME, or YOU. It's about writing an encyclopedia. ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I guess when you claim that people are making “unsupported” claims, what you mean is they are using facts that don’t support you rather than the facts that do support you. | |||
| : No, I still stand by my edits to the OC page and my actions here. You have yet to successfully attack one of my ''actual edits''. You're attacking ME, my actions in warning vandals, my edits to MY OWN TALK page, my comments on this talk page, my work ethic, and everything but what's actually relevant to this discussion. The facts are, I have removed very little from the page. I've made very few substantive edits. I have followed Misplaced Pages policy in warning vandals, using Misplaced Pages templates. You have it out for ME PERSONALLY for some reason, which is baffling to me. I can only guess that you have some simmering hatred of my employer, and unable to attack them directly, you have chosen this forum to anonymously vent your rage where there are no consequences or social pressure to behave yourself. ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I wish people would stop doing that to you. It makes it awfully hard for you to win arguments when they go out and find out the real deal. Next thing you know, people are going to point out that OC’s rank of 7th out of 21 in the U.S. News and Reports list of western comprehensive colleges only includes a handful of colleges and universities in OK. ] 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to write an encyclopedia. It's one of my hobbies. Once again, I ask that you leave me alone. Stop attacking me personally. ] 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:53, 13 February 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oklahoma Christian University article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Title IX Exemption
The concise inclusion of Oklahoma Christian University's Title IX exemption is in line with Misplaced Pages policies listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. The following specific Misplaced Pages policies prohibit editing of this brief and relevant statement that is cited with a link to the US Department of Education's website.
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion 4. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Misplaced Pages articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Misplaced Pages neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Misplaced Pages to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Misplaced Pages. See also Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.
Misplaced Pages is not censored Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Misplaced Pages is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Misplaced Pages:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.
Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Misplaced Pages, because Misplaced Pages is not a member of those organizations; thus, Misplaced Pages will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.
The policy that Misplaced Pages is not censored also contains the following quote which is longer than the one-sentence Title IX addition: "The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views." - Clark Kerr, President of the University of California (1961)
Citation from https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not "Former UC President Clark Kerr, a national leader in higher education, dies at 92" (Press release). UC Berkeley. December 2, 2003. Retrieved August 5, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.142.25.163 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
OC Trustees
The update to the OC Trustees is concise and cited with an appropriate link at https://www.oc.edu/about/president/board-of-trustees. The veracity of this claim is clear from the listing of each organization the trustee represents on the OC Board of Trustees webpage. Misplaced Pages's policies for censorship and editing by paid editors representing corporations should be followed and this should not be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.246.139 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- "University has board of trustees and they support the university's policies" is not information that adds anything to this article or informs readers of anything that isn't already patently obvious. Should we also add a sentence to the article telling readers that the university employs faculty who teach classes, too? ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- The claim that the board has representatives of various organisations is not backed up by the source cited. That someone is affiliated with an organisation does not mean they represent that organisation; that requires a source saying that they have been appointed as representatives of those organisations on the board (presumably in a manner similar to the Court of a British university). The claim that "OC's policies have a wide base of support" does not appear to be supported by any citation; it certainly cannot be deduced from the existence of the Board of Directors – even if true, this would be WP:Original Research. Robminchin (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with Robminchin that the given reference doesn't come close to supporting the claim in the text that
OC's policies have a wide base of support
. I do think that a comprehensive university article ought to mention (with suitable references) if it's governed by a board of trustees, though—it's an important part of the university's structure, even if not particularly distinctive. {{u|Sdkb}} 06:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)- Agree with ElKevbo and Robminchin that the claim is not supported by the references. Trustees at all universities are often affiliated with organizations and companies, that does not mean that those organization and companies support the mission statement of the university, particularly if it is religious in nature. The most that can be said given the current resources is that there is a Board of Trustees and that members of the Board are affiliated with several national companies and orgs, certainly nothing about support of policies. Eccekevin (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Our unregistered colleague disagrees and is edit warring to preserve his or her preferred version of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with ElKevbo and Robminchin that the claim is not supported by the references. Trustees at all universities are often affiliated with organizations and companies, that does not mean that those organization and companies support the mission statement of the university, particularly if it is religious in nature. The most that can be said given the current resources is that there is a Board of Trustees and that members of the Board are affiliated with several national companies and orgs, certainly nothing about support of policies. Eccekevin (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with Robminchin that the given reference doesn't come close to supporting the claim in the text that
- The claim that the board has representatives of various organisations is not backed up by the source cited. That someone is affiliated with an organisation does not mean they represent that organisation; that requires a source saying that they have been appointed as representatives of those organisations on the board (presumably in a manner similar to the Court of a British university). The claim that "OC's policies have a wide base of support" does not appear to be supported by any citation; it certainly cannot be deduced from the existence of the Board of Directors – even if true, this would be WP:Original Research. Robminchin (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality
Does anyone else think that this article is very self-promotional in places? There is already a message in place in the "Campus" section, but I am seeing it in other places throughout the article as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there was conflict of interest by faculty or other involved parties editing this page. Anyone have any thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Categories: