Talk:Western Seminary

message: A Western Seminary employee gave me permission to use the text of a Western Seminary website page (http://www.westernseminary.edu/AboutWS/history.htm) to include the history of the school on the wikipedia page. After receiving this message from Wikipedia, I've attempted to adjust the text temp directory page to give it more of my own writing tone and I words.
Please allow me to post the info that I've submitted as of today, Friday, October 12.
Thanks, and have a great day!
PJPjozzies 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Per Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy, I find the following parts to sound spammy, preachy, or otherwise biased:
*The Board of Trustees shared the seminary's driving purpose: “Looking across the years... 
**This sentence is not encyclopedic and does not appear to highlight any unique or noteworthy aspect of the school.  Unless the "driving purpose" of the school is sufficiently unique, it doesn't deserve mention in an encyclopedia article.
*Western has emerged as a (sic) innovator in designing graduate programs for vocational ministry.
**This sentence is unqualified.  By whose standards or perception?  Such statements need to be verified by reliable sources.
*As a Western graduate, he contributes a wealth of leadership experiences in and alongside the Church.
**This sentence is POV.  Since the subject, Dr. Downs, does not have an article of his own, unqualified flowery statements about his value to the school are out of place and focus.
CobaltBlueTony 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: With all due respect, and as I've written elsewhere, the so-called POV thing seems to be an over-played card in the Wikipedia universe. It is genuinely irritating to see a POV objection pop up not 24 hours after the initial article was posted. Really! Give the initial authors some time to review their own work for a couple of days before jumping on them over alleged POV issues. Wiki articles evolve, change, and progress. It is, seems to me, unrealistic to expect full-on so-called "encyclopedic" tone on the first day of a post.
Additionally, there is incredible irony in accusing an article about a Christian seminary of being "preachy." If there is anywhere to allow a small dab of 'preachiness,' it should be in an article describing a school that takes pride in educating preachers!
Look, either we take seriously the Wikipedia mantra to "Be Bold!" or we sit back and do nothing because of the annoyance factor of having to respond to over-sensitive POV-police. emesselt 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Tone 

message: :Image:Spurgeon logo journal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Spurgeon logo journal.jpg