Talk:Louisiana Baptist University/Archive2

message: Gastrich is clearly at it again, with multiple sockpuppets causing editors to waste far too much time with his POV edits.  I've placed the nPOV dispute notification at the top of the page, and, just as needed to be done with the Skeptic's Annotated Bible article, I am suggesting that the page be locked from further editing until this matter gets settled and under control - WarriorScribe 02:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  17 February 2006 POV dispute notification posted 

message: This page should probably be unprotected now; it's been protected for long enough.  --Cyde Weys 01:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've listed it for unprotection. - RoyBoy 800 06:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Will drop by in a while to see if it's all gone nuclear again.  Alai 09:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's on my watchlist too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 10:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is now plenty of POV like it was never blocked. There is educational testimonials in the article, POV about "life experience," POV about the dissertations, and more unnotables. It is clear that Gastrich is making these changes because if you look at the history page these new edits are the same as his old ones. If you can't order a copy of the dissertation from the school it is almost pointless to hardbound a dissertation/thesis. No researcher is going to travel to the "school" to read a dissertation. The point of microfilming is to make the research (that's what a dissertation is) available to academia. LBU doesn't even allow the dissertations to be copied. Arbustoo 07:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous dissertation paragraph has been reinstated; I'd like consensus to take care of the rest if they see fit. - RoyBoy 800 07:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I removed the ACCTS sentence that "ACCTS is designed to monitor religious colleges, universities, and seminaries" because it is uncited. ACCTS has no website and there is no citation that they "monitor" "universities." They "approve" (not accredit) Carl Baugh's religious university, but that is the only thing known about it. Also I noted that they have no approval from the government. Arbustoo 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACCTS 
Accreditation
 "approval" 

message: Analogous to Wikipedia:Autobiography, the editing of an article involving an organization in which one holds a personal stake often results in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and disruption of the article. That said, I've asked User:TonyT5 at his talk page to disclose his affiliation, if any, to the university. I feel this is necessary as his intense focus on this particular article suggests a pov agenda and has become disruptive contrib list. FeloniousMonk 06:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my FM, exposing our secrative wikiways. If you keep doing that POVs get wise and then I have to go searching for them. Actually that sounds kind of fun !"D RoyBoy 800 06:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching for missing socks? FeloniousMonk 06:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems "TonyT5" added Jason Gastrich's website to Kent Hovind's article. Arbustoo 07:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  "TonyT5" has undid my changes. Several mintues later a new wiki user registered,User:LinkChecker, who then undid all my TonyT5 reverts on other pages and reverted this article. See his comments on my talk page User talk:Arbustoo. This is getting very annoying, is anything going to be done? Arbustoo 08:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  TonyT5, and Jason's two other socks-of-the-moment were blocked this morning for a collective 3RR violation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation of affiliated parties 

message: There has been some senseless editing, lately. In fact, it looks like vandalism. Basically, some are trying to remove everything positive from the entry; even if it's simply encyclopedic. Here is what has been removed, lately:
1. A section called "Contrary to diploma mills"
2. Elaboration on the alumni (as other university sites always do)
3. Elaboration on what is involved in earning credit by using Chuck Missler's book
4. Academic reviews
These things are pertinent, accurate, and encyclopedic and need to be maintained. --Turkmen 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jason! Mark K. Bilbo 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Turkmen and I didn't expect anyone to have a good reason or thoughtful reply because it's indeed senseless.--Turkmen 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are reverting to a version by a blocked sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich.  All that's goign to do is get you blocked in the same 3RR violation bundle as the other socks.  Now talk about it here and see if you can achieve consensus for the changes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased and senseless deleting/vandalism 

message: Can the NPOV tag go? It seems to me that the article puts both sides of the case at present. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest leaving it a bit longer, since we can see that the page has become something of a flash point for Gastrich socks.  Once things have settled for a bit and the socks don't show up as quickly or as often, maybe then?  Of course, that's just a suggestion.  Quite frankly, I was debating nominating it for deletion, again, since it's become such a problem article and this particular diploma mill just ain't worth all that time and effort.  - WarriorScribe 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see it go, but Scribe is right. Arbustoo 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: From the google map it looks that way.  Certainly it is right off the highway. The campus looks like a parking lot with one building. Along the lines of  mcDonalds. David D. (Talk) 10:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since they only offer ten classes a semester for physical attendence, I wouldn't see the need for a huge campus. Arbustoo 11:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been able to obtain some of the materials from a sample of "graduate-level" classes and, in looking it over, I can't say that I'm impressed, at all.  However, Arbustoo is right.  A couple of the larger private universities also started from fairly humble beginnings, but I also think that it's safe to say that they don't have any competition from LBU. - WarriorScribe 16:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I put "strategically" in the infobox since that is how they describe themselves.  i thought it was cute but it clearly had to go.  The address is probably not appropriate since that is location.  We should probably just make that a field a null since the other universites use that section to describe whether they are an urban, rural etc. campus aa well as the size of the campus. David D. (Talk) 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay...sounds fine to me.  In fact, since the category does say "setting," it probably means something general.  "Urban" would work.  - WarriorScribe 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shreveport? Urban? Boy they'll anybody in that club I guess. Mark K. Bilbo 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it a strip mall?

message: Here's a brief explanation, intended for editors other than User:Jason_Gastrich who are wondering why their contributions do not seem to be appreciated. Edits that clearly follow the pattern set by Jason are de facto reverted on sight, followed by the editor being blocked as a suspected sock puppet of Jason. The only way to get such edits in would be via consensus on the talk page of the article in question. Since the pattern typically involves the expressed total disregard of Wikipedia policies, it also involves a refusal to discuss, or after discussion a refusal to accept any other result than full compliance with the editor's wishes, which typically include removal of other points of view and addition or overrepresentation of the own POV. "Revert on sight" and blocking access may look hostile to you but please understand these edits and the pattern itself have already been discussed to distraction. Editors who employ these tactics basically stand alone (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich). AvB ÷ talk 11:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, what, four more Jason Gastrich puppets? Jason's behavior certainly doesn't reflect well on Louisiana Baptist University. Arbustoo 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot these:
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
 and finally
.  the last one is particularly bad since it is an impersonation of  User:Naconkantari who blocked many of his previous socks. David D. (Talk) 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think I've ever seen such compulsive behavior out of him. I mean, one after the other after the other after the other... to the point he's numbering them? Wow. Mark K. Bilbo 14:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he's multiplying like crazy now. This is not good for the LBU so surely counterproductive from JG's point of view. AvB ÷ talk 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now he's going as User:Andandrus so he's out of the numbered-clone phase.  --Her girlfriend  14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If your edits were reverted recently, please read this explanation

message: Ok, with this constant barrage, I think one of the admins around here needs to put this under semi-protection so that noobs and anons can't edit this. Harvestdancer 04:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Let's see if that helps.  Antandrus  (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protection?

message: Gastrich is now claiming that the multiple socks aren't him, and he's naming John Wolf ("Bible John") as a potential suspect.  My first impulse is to reject that, since Gastrich's writing style is markedly different from Wolf's (Wolf is a fairly poor writer) and the edits are vintage Gastrich, as are some of the associated comments that accompany the edits.  The Gastrich comments on Plover's talk page are also typical of Gastrich.  I'd also add that it's not unusual for Gastrich to make these kinds of pretenses about other personalities and then act as if they are not him, when they clearly are. 
On the other hand--and to be fair, this has to be noted--the checkuser did not identify a number of the socks as necessarily Gastrich's (not that this is definitive, Gastrich operates or has operated from at least three ISPs--AOL, Charter, and Roadrunner, and may be able to access using Cox).  - WarriorScribe 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please. Outside wikipedia, Gastrich has a history of impersonating other people. John has no history of this sort of behavior at all. And the writing style is very Jason. JoshuaZ 07:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say he has no history of this sort of behavior.  See many of the supposed identities of John. David D. (Talk) 11:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. However, if Gastrich's claim is accurate why didn't he speak up earlier? JoshuaZ 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's another reason I'm not buying it.  Everything that's been happening, from the pig-headed and arrogant behavior to the use of socks is fully within Gastrich's behavior.  FWIW, I only mentioned it in because it was possible that some had not seen his denial. - WarriorScribe 16:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Were it anyone besides Wolf that he were accusing, I'd agree that this is an "oh please", but he is talking about the one person with less credibility than he has, so I'm forced to consider it as a possibility. Harvestdancer 16:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gastrich Denial 

message: I don't tend to be deletionist, but for a plugged nickle, I'd put this article up for deletion again. Is LSU at all notable in the wider context, or is the Wikicontroversy the only "notability" that applies in the context of WP? Justin Eiler 04:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No but we can just discount any votes from known socks or new accounts.  --Ruby  05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Making no judgement of notability myself, I will comment that schools of any kind tend to be kept, and if their article is relatively well developed they are almost always kept, so I suspect an AFD would fail.  Since it has just shy of 10,000 Google hits, that's even more reason.  It's also likely that the prominent position of the Wikipedia article in the Google ranking is part of the reason JG is so persistent.  Antandrus  (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't done it yet though, so who knows what'll happen until it happens.  --Cyde Weys 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The US is more of a hotbed for fundamentalism than Australia, I'll wager. Ditto on what JZ sez about being an awful reason to delete something. For me, that sentiment also applies to people's reasons to delete the "LBU month" thing. dfg 04:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable outside of the controversy? 

message: :::Um, trying to get this back on topic - I would say that the "LBU month" is trivial, quite likely down to special pleading, may be the result of personal bias on the part of the Governor, and is not a recurrent event.  Include it if you must, though. Guy 18:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said previously, even though some might think it portrays LBU in a positive light while most evidence points to it being a religious diploma mill, I think it should be included as long as the proper context is provided. What would be even better is if someone could research the connections (staffer alumni, political "contributions") LBU has to the governor's office. How possible that is is another matter entirely, but a man can dream, can't he? dfg 19:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking for connections between the gov and LBU would almost certainly by OR. In any case, it simply isn't notable. Governor's make all sorts of declarations of this sort all the time. JoshuaZ 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drawing conclusions from any evidence would be original research, but discovering something via an FOIA request, or looking at fundraiser invitee list would not be. The policy states: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. Merely presenting any factual information that has already been published or recorded would not fall into those categories. dfg 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what official policy is on FOIAs (I could find one from a quick search), but I would think a FOIA would constitute original research by most standards. JoshuaZ 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to strongly disagree that information garnered from an FOIA request would constitute OR because the way I understand it, the WP OR policy makes it sound like new ideas and hypotheses are not acceptable, but the straightforward representation of facts is. As an example, let me point out the featured article on Project MKULTRA; in the external links is a link to multiple documents s sources of information obtained via FOIA. I would think something as obvious as OR used would be caught rather quickly by peer review. dfg 05:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Continuing to vere off=topic. Those FOIA requests have generally been made by entities outside Wikipedia and the results of them can be found elsewhere. It seems pretty ORy to me for it to be done solely for Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's most certainly not veering off-topic, but I understand now the distinction you're making between looking for an existing FOIA and initiating one. But I'm sure that this little corner of cyberspace is not the only place where there are parties interested in looking into how diploma mills operate. If there isn't anything out there now, hopefully there will be in the future. dfg 05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That distinction is detailed in WP:NOR, one of the policies mentioned earlier. But the point you seem to be making is relevant. I agree with JoshuaZ that e.g. FOIA requests solely intended for Wikipedia will, in principle, amount to OR. But it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to start their own (original) research projects and/or try and get the media interested in researching and publishing on the issue (without mentioning or involving Wikipedia). If this leads to notable, verifiable publications from reputable sources, Wikipedia policies will allow the information to be quoted in related WP articles. AvB ÷ talk 10:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I have a hard time thinking of that proclimation meaning much of anything. Like I've said, I live here and never heard of LBU nor the proclimation until coming to the Wiki. Mark K. Bilbo 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't sound like a valid reason to exclude the information. Aside from the obvious fact that just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the entry—look here for an example of Señor Wales emphasizing that, regardless of fame and importance (i.e. who has and hasn't heard of it) "information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion" does indeed belong in Wikipedia. That the written proof of Guv'ner Blanco awarding LBU is available in a pdf on the LA.gov website meets the "verifiable" criteria, while noting that Blanco hands out so many proclamations like this that they're almost not worth the paper upon which they're printed, well, that provides context and thus a more NPOV. dfg 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not present that as a "reason" for anything but to illustrate a point. Nobody pays attention to these "proclamations." All 50 governors pass them out like party favors and I'm betting whatever state you live in, you haven't a clue what "official" month, week, or day it is right now. Nobody pays any real attention when Congress and the President do this "proclamation" thing. And they do, all the time. For all we know, this is "Polka Appreciation Week." It's not just Blanco doing this. They used to mean something but have been so overused that they lost all meaning and became trivial long before any of us here were even born. I don't actually have an opinion on whether or not it should be included in the article. I'm only expressing a personal opinion that it doesn't look "notable" to me. And, yeah, I kind of do think that whether or not the residents of the state in question noticed a particular action of their governor is something that factors into "notability." But, no, I don't have any surveys handy. I will say that I hazard if you said "LBU" to most of the folks in this state, they'd think you meant to say "LSU" but had a slip of the tongue. And particularly now far as notable things go, we have much more notable issues to deal with as it seems one of our cities has gone missing. Mark K. Bilbo 14:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability based upon how many people know about it does factor in, but there are many examples of issues involving states or countries where the residents within are not aware of them, yet are still valid for inclusion within an encyclopedia. I'm certain the percentages are quite low for the number of people within a state that are aware of every important bill or law their state legislature enacts, or even how many U.S. citizens could name all 9 SCOTUS justices, or all 10 amendments on the Bill of Rights, but just because the majority of people are ignorant or unaware of it does not mean it is non-notable. You are right that it is trivial, which is why there should be only a brief mention of it in such a section, and not a whole article devoted to this one proclamation. dfg 16:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  That is a valid reason. Items on Wikipedia should be notable (this is why fancruft frequently gets deleted or removed). Including the proclamation is not much more notable than that LBU's graduates are more likely to be cat owners then a random sample of the populace (hypothetically speaking). JoshuaZ 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the proclamation is much more notable because of the public figure involved (50 governors:250 million+ citizens), and the proclamation takes 35 seconds to verify, online at that, while I think one would be much more hard-pressed to verify and find documentation for such a random set of demographic information from LBU alumni, and especially hard-pressed to find it signed, sealed, and delivered by the office of the Governor. dfg 05:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, notability as per WP can be a slippery concept. The solution is to reach a consensus on the talk page, or perhaps put it to a vote. I think it is notable precisely because of the diploma mill suspicions. To me this type of support from the Governor in the face of widespread suspicion is a clear statement that these concerns are not valid in her opinion. AvB ÷ talk 13:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two points: first notability and verifiability are different issues. Wikipedia is not about having all the universes information in it. Second, the proclamation doesn't indicate that the governor had such concerns at all. All it indicates is that someone wanted the gov to make such a proclamation. JoshuaZ 14:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, notability and verifiability are two different things. The quote I linked to re JWales' opinion on which of the two is more important in regards to inclusion indicates he believes it's the latter (along with NPOV). Also, dear Joshua, you make it sound as if the Gov is coerced or required to sign anything that crosses her desk. Don't forget that the governor is a public servant and not a despot, so essentially, she is required to do things that people want her to do if she is to remain in office. The proclamation does not explicitly state that the commendation was made to rebut diploma mill claims, but one has to assume that either the Gov or her handlers staff would calculate the risks and benefits of putting her name to the paper. dfg 16:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: LBU month should be left out. It is undescriptive, offers no educational merits to the school, and has no value in the article at all. There is not a single convincing argument that it should be left in. If people are interested in viewing the school's promotions they can read it at the schools website. Arbusto 06:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gubernatorial proclamation notability 

message: I haven't responded to much of Dfg's "facts" and silly conclusions. Mark is attending to more important matters. Dfg should, however, not fool himself into believing this means we have no defense. We (I think I'm also speaking for Mark at this point) simply do not wish to assist or encourage disruptive behavior. We also know the other editors are perfectly capable of reaching their own conclusions. Bottom line: This silly stuff no longer has anything to do with editing the LBU article—except for: 
* Dfg wants the "LBU month" information reinserted into the article. (I am in favor. Mark—and, I think, most other editors—are not.)
* Dfg wants to document fraud by the Governor of Louisiana (fraud specifically alleged by Dfg), based on information e.g. acquired via FOIA requests. This is, however, impossible unless confirmed by verifiable information from reputable sources. 
I hope this describes a consensus regarding Dfg's objectives. If not, feel free to discuss without me. I'm walking away from this article for now. AvB ÷ talk 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly agreed, except I only suspect foul play, have no hard evidence for it, and realize that an independent wikinvestigation would almost definitely constitute OR. I just wish the next time a professional journalist decides to do a story on diploma mills, the stars align and they happen across this entry and talk page and get inspired. I also wish for a time machine to go back and score that $365M Powerball jackpot, but, yeah. dfg 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you visit the archives on this talk page you will see a scholar on diploma mills refer to Louisiana Baptist University as such. Arbusto 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Dfgarcia]]

message: For the past couple of months there was a link on the article page of a dissertation approved by Louisiana Baptist University for a PhD. That webpage was pulled offline. Since the link was dead it was removed and a cached version was added. That link was removed and I just wanted to get a cited clarification as to why. I think having a LBU disseration linked is a valuable assest to the article. Arbusto 00:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it too embarrassing? David D. (Talk) 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example of the work done at Louisiana Baptist University 

message: Their online form has a section for life credit:  and also here (Experiential Learning Credits). Assertion of "accredation" is implied here: Why Choose LBU, seventh bullet; "...As an approved school of the BBFI ..." Futher, their constant use of "degreed programs" etc gives the clear impression these are valid degrees. They are not. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to LBU