Talk:Grace University

message: I propose removing the article's templates (not the templates in the coments section).  Much time has passed and past controversies are not longer being actively debated here.  Since their placement 5+ years ago, much material added, many improvements have been made, and references added. Further, the lesbian student debate has become dormant and is no longer a hotly debated topic and the college is now closed.  The following points from the guidelines concerning removing templates seem relevant here:
6. If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Some neutrality-related templates, such as  (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and  (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;
7. There is currently no consensus for age-related removal of maintenance templates, with the exception of POV-related templates as addressed immediately above. In this regard, some templates relate to matters that are binary and unambiguous—the problem the maintenance template flags is plainly required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and therefore persists until addressed (e.g., the lack of any citations). As with the POV exception, age alone may be relevant where a lack of edits or of discussion addressed to the issue may be interpreted as a form of "silent consensus", that the issue isn't worth fixing. This invariably involves matters implicating an exercise of judgement and subjective elements;
I will give the issue a few days for comments, prior to taking any action.
--Jsniessen (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the conflict template - the article seems to have been rewritten and editted many time since then.  The article is still a bit light on references, so maintained that template.--Jsniessen (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Templates 

message: After reviewing WP:EXTERNALREL, I believe I would be allowed to edit this page.  I will readily admit that I am a student at Grace University.  Obviously, this is a significant connection to the subject matter, but I can assure you I am not paid (quite the contrary).  Anyway, I was hoping for my fellow Wikipedians to comment on what could be done to improve this page with the goal of removing the advertisement tags.  Also, if I would be allowed to edit this page.  I am tagging User:Paulmcdonald to help jumpstart this editing as you appear to be an experienced editor.Littledj95 (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Conflict of Interest should never be interpreted to prevent good faith edits in an article using information that is well sourced.  It is intended to prevent bias or point of view content in articles.  It also should never prevent editing by someone who is enthusiastic about the content.  For example, I happen to like Kansas State University and make edits in articles about the football team there.  I suggest that you move forward with good faith edits that you see fit.  If you screw up, someone will let you know (just as they let me know when I screwed up when I was new to Wikipedia).--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can this article be improved? 

message: This page is very biased and full of personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.15.40 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which students? Where? In what publication?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeiADP (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of view

message: This page needs references to show that it is notable. It seems to be a non-notable school. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference to the accrediting authority has been added. This should address the notability question. ✤ JonHarder talk 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs references

message: This story is making national news and gives this Wikipedia entry more attention.  Perhaps a section should be added?
Huffington Post (story)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.13.9 (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging from this post at the Help Desk (the title is my addition), Dswartz3583 thinks they're protecting their page from interference. I've told them to pursue proper Dispute Resolution, starting with discussing it here. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danielle Powell Incident 

message: I have been watching this page and how the issues lately have developed around the expulsion of the student.  The last revision included a deletion of the section without discussion.  I restored the section and opened this discussion here about the merits of the content.  Why should it or should it not be included, and should any modifications and/or changes take place??  Please discuss.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately it's unlikely that the people removing the content will participate in the discussion.  I hope I'm wrong, but there has been no response from any of them on their talk pages when messages have been left there. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 11:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right, but I'm a big fan of "due process" ... --Paul McDonald (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

text:  Hopefully they'll realise doing that really doesn't make the university look any better and stop. On the topic, considering it's probably the most notable event concerning the university (beyond the local level, at least), it seems worthy of inclusion. Rmdsc (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I also think it is a valid entry in the article.  As you say, it's very notable and unique (or at least rare) and that's worth mentioning.  It might even warrant its own topic article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of content removal

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Grace University which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*https://www.change.org/petitions/grace-university-don-t-force-my-wife-to-pay-back-college-scholarships-because-she-s-gay
*:Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 22:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Grace University]]