Talk:Covenant Theological Seminary

message: All of the sources for the article are primary sources "written by people [or organisations] who are directly involved" with CTS. None of them contain "analytic or evaluative claims". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its listings on accreditation bodies' websites are of course independent 3rd party sources. And they do, pretty much by definition, contain "analytic or evaluative claims". -- 202.124.73.222 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have a clue what you're talking about! WP:N explicitly defines independent sources to exclude "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent." CTS is explicitly affliated with these organisations. So no, they are not independent. And no, the cited pages contain no "analytic or evaluative claims", just boilerplate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're seriously suggesting that the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools is not independent? By your reasoning, no article on the USA should rely on sources written by US citizens, because they are affiliated with the subject. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: You clearly don't understand WP:CIVIL. I don't believe you understand WP:RS either. The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools is independent in the sense that CTS does not control what it says. In the same way that the US Government does not control what its citizens say. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I understand civility, I just also believe in WP:SPADE, particularly when people insult my intelligence with such asininely tendentious claims as yours dated  09:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cool off. And please WP:AGF. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF does not imply willful blindness. I am not so blind as to ignore a dishonest claim that CTS's AFFLIATION with NCACS does not directly impact the latter's independence. Or to ignore the fact that independence and/or affiliation are only very loosely connected to WP:RS -- the policy that you irrelevantly raised. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: It would seem to me that the National Register of Historic Places is a legitimate analogy. Lots of buildings on wikipedia have a sole reference to the NRHP website. But that is obviously "affiliated" in the sense that User:Hrafn was suggesting - the only reason a particular building is mentioned on the NRHP website is because of this affiliation. WP:N gives a list of what "not independent" might mean, and none of those things apply here. So I agree with 202.124.74.2 and support the tag being removed. StAnselm (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a considerably-less-than-legitimate analogy, as the buildings and/or their owners have no direct affiliation with the NRHP, nor any choice whatsoever as to whether their buildings are listed with them. Likewise the accreditations bodies do not determine whether the institutions are of national significance (an issue relating directly to notability) but rather merely that they meet certain academic minimums. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: There are a lot of colleges in the NCACS. I'm sure the influence of any one of them on the NCACS is so diluted as to be effectively zero. And certainly nothing in WP:RS or WP:N excludes the NCACS listing as a source. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The point remains that their NCACS listing is directly related to their NCACS affiliation. It is no more 'independent' coverage than your inclusion of your photo in your highschool's yearbook was -- even if you were only one of hundreds or thousands of students. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Their NCACS listing is indeed directly related to their being a legitimate college. That's the point, in fact. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, certainly the easiest was of resolving the issue was to add more sources - well done. If you had an account I would give you a barnstar. StAnselm (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: As noted above, the accreditation listings by North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada are not primary sources. The "Covenant Theological Seminary, Records" citation is important because it's the official PCA endorsement, but is backed up by an independent book citation. The remaining primary sources are well within guidelines. -- 202.124.73.180 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Covenant Theological Seminary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925072515/http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/institutesinitiatives/francisaschaefferinstitute/ to http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/institutesinitiatives/francisaschaefferinstitute/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified