Talk:Southern Nazarene University

message: This criticism section is not balanced in stating that the alumni have a choice to where they donate their funds to. This section sounds like a meaningless rant rather than a constructive criticism. This needs to be fixed or removed.Computernoob 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: What happened to the Men's Tennis program? Why did they cancel it around 2002? I found a site, but it's 5 years old almost. It sounds like a mystery to me, or a cover-up. Moonraker0022 12:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the office of Sports Information in an interview conducted it was learned that the Men's Tennis program recieved the "death sentence" by SNU Athletic Director. Meaning there will never be a revived Men's Tennis program at the school.Moonraker0022 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Men's Tennis

message: Need to check the # of grad degrees, etc offered.  Off the top of my head, I can think of masters degrees offered by the School of Theology and Ministry, School of Nursing (2?, Nursing and Nursing Ed), School of Education (maybe 2 there, EdLeadership, MEd (does it still exist?)), Psychology (MSCP and I think there is a non-thesis masters there, too), Business (2? MBA and MSB).... 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degree counts 

message: I like the extra regional explanation being put into the note. It is confusing to people unfamiliar with our regions. thanks.Moonraker0022 (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  affiliation 

message: I noticed that this page lacks a "notable alumni" section. I think it would be interesting to see if any "notable" people have graduated from SNU (assuming that we use the same general criterion for notability as other Wikipedia articles). I've heard that Boyd Matson (ex-National Geographic anchorman) is an SNU alum. Another would be Gary Hart (a U.S. senator involved in a 1980s sex scandal). Any others?
Radical Robert (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Alumni? 

message: I propose that a new page entitled "History of SNU" be created to cover, and go more in depth on the schools, locations, mascots, ext. of all things SNU prior to SNU circa de 1988 (When the school changed from BNC to SNU). That date could get moved back, a good place would be the all things before they all merged onto the present location here at 39th and College. (Make sense?) I beleive that date was in the 40s or 50s. So that the SNU page would be 95% of SNU now, and 5% history in summary form with a main article link to "History of Southern Nazarene". What are ya'lls thoughts?  Moonraker0022 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More appropriate than a separate "History of SNU" article might be separate historical articles for each of the defunct educational institutions. One already exists: Central Nazarene College. See Barrington College and St. Viator College for more examples. That way, the SNU page can then keep the short history it already has, which is appropriate to both an encyclopedic article and its level of notability (I know it might seem mean, but no Nazarene school merits a separate article for its history if we base any of what we do on standards of notability). I would love more history and better coverage, only disagree in the sense that there are now separate articles with information that could easily be part of the main SNU article (example: Southern Nazarene Crimson Storm, for which I might formally suggest a merger with the main article). Articles full of headings and a lot of redlinks are normally the kind to which I'd add a cleanup or non-notable/unencyclopedic tag to (though I'd like you and I to maintain this healthy and collaborative Wiki relationship, MoonRaker, so I've avoided doing that!). Let's talk more about this. Aepoutre (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNU History 

message: Must everything be an issue? Please stop reverting all my edits, I know what I'm doing here. The University Infobox Example clearly shows "Prof." used before a name. (i.e. it is that person's title.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities#Example
Also, locations... State are clearly spelled out. I can think of an exception not mentioned in the example, but it California would make it go to two lines use just CA. Most, and by most I mean 99% of them, have state listed out, as in in the example. And most say United States to, but I'll let ya get a third party to weigh in on that change. and again, please stop AUTOMATICALLY changing all my edits, (and yes I used CAPS because I'm getting annoyed, I've brought this up multiple times.) Moonraker0022 (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  titles and states 

message: This edit sounds like synthesis, although it's also just plain inaccurate. I'll elaborate as to both. This source was used to say "Crimson and white" with  and . The most recent edit says "Crimson and white" with  and . It seems to use this source, with Pantone 201, combined with this source from another institution, which also uses Pantone 201. The latter specifies that its hex version of Pantone 201 is #B30838. The most recent edit summary said that "SNU and the University of Oklahoma share the same Pantone for Crimson, so our color on here should still be the same." But #620E0E isn't #B30838. Even if it was, to use this source together with this source plus this source constitutes original research per WP:SYN. King of the Arverni (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know where to begin. According to both Universities standard guides, they both use the same pantone. There is no WP:SYN. It's the same thing, like the old 1/2 Price Store ads. As stated earlier, the uniforms in the photos are the darker shade. You pick the littlest things to have and edit war over. Since we are using a 3rd party source, and have thrown out the SNU VSG, the shade of crimson as you suggest, should match other evidence of SNU. Now the picture provided, and I can provide many more GNU-FREE pictures. Do you have photoshop, cuz you can use the eyedropper tool to show you that SNU uses the dark shade of crimson. Now you may think that that is WP:OR, but we are having an edit war over a shade of crimson. I would suggest focusing on the actually meat of the article. You seem to like Nazarene schools, and seem to really like ENC. (even though ENC is the smallest, and yet, has the largest article...and the rest seem like cookie cutter articles.) So put more meat on this SNU article and let people who are actually, physically, really, here worry about the actual shade of Crimson we use. So it really shouldn't be something to edit war over. If someone keeps putting bad subject matter, I have no doubt, you'll be the first one to correct it. Plus there are other university articles you could be policing. I've said my piece over and over about the darker shade. There is more to SNU than it's shade and pantone. Moonraker0022 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you don't like my editing, but please do not comment on the contributor. Before we go any further, to make sure my understanding is clear, let me quote from WP:SYN:Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. I could be mistaken, but it looks as though using one source that says one thing (SNU Crimson & White), another that says another (SNU Pantone 201 with Pantone 139 & Black), and a third that says something on another topic (OU Crimson Pantone 201/#B30838) is "A and B, therefore C" without any one source actually saying "C". That seems to be WP:OR. "No original research" is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. More to the point, neither this edit nor this edit used #B30838 but #620E0E, which doesn't seem to be used in the OU source, making the OU reference of little relevance, the edit summary somewhat misleading, and the intended rationale fairly poor. As for asking me to look at whatever "the picture" means, I thought we'd established that colors look different on different computers, and that does seem like more OR to me. That said, it looks much closer to me using the actual "crimson" than using #620E0E. I therefore must have a different POV, which is the whole  point of having WP:V, instead of WP:OR -- to establish WP:NPOV. King of the Arverni (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what I have seen in the above comments, I would have to say that the phrasing which should be used is "crimson and white". And, believe it or not, removing unverified content is not engaging in an edit war. It is in fact what good editors are supposed to do. Unless unambiguous information regarding the use of other terminology is found, then the content should remain with "crimson and white", which seems to be, based on the available evidence, the best supported. And I would also request that editors refrain from casting any sort of aspersions on others, or, basically, telling them to go away. That is not acceptable behavior, particularly when the editor in question is actually acting in the interests of wikipedia. If one side or another wishes to have some sort of discussion regarding which terminology to use, I would suggest that a request for comment be filed and the various opposing options be presented. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole dispute just sucks. If we use an "eyedropper" as Moonraker0022 suggests, we get #990000. If we use graphics editors to convert the RGB from the SNU VSG we get #990033. If we use the same editor to convert the CMYK from the SNU VSG we get nothing because it won't accept the specified quantities. If we use any number of conversion charts to convert Pantone 201 from the SNU VSG we get #A32638. If we use the OU VSG, that same Pantone 201 should be #B30838. That is, unless we're talking about how the "official colors look great in print however do not translate well to screen" and then it's #841617. There are two different options from the SNU VSG if we use the "web site color palette" to "build Southern Nazarene University's institutional colors on the Web"': #620E0E for "light crimson" and #AA2727 for "dark crimson". If we use Wikipedia's crimson from X11 then we get #DC143C. This is ridiculous. Let's just leave it as-is. You're right, Moonraker0022; no one except the two of us even cares about SNU enough to contribute, and the school has multiple conflicting sources of its own, never mind the third-party sources. I definitely concede this to your judgement for now, since you're obviously a die-hard SNU "alum" and I've always assumed good faith on your part. I just hope any future disputes can be more civil and free from personal attacks. Until next time! King of the Arverni (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimson sources and research 

message: Starting this year there will be extream budget cuts to staff. I find the motives indicative of a shut down in progress. After a staff appreciation lunch at Southern Nazarene University, the school announced that they would be shutting down the Physics degree program, eliminating more jobs and Dr.  Dwight E. Neuenschwander - main professor in Physics at SNU and published author. Dr. Neuenschwander has been at the school for more than 20 years; students are said to protest the matter.
The school underwent a change of president from Gresham to Newman. He is said to be "cleaning the mess" that the last president Gresham had created. Sadly religious schools are notoriously secretive about their finances, and SNU is no exception. Their head of finances Scott Strong... is not liked on campus, to say the least. Currently, he's enjoying the sunshine in Costa Rica while the masses are being laid off at the school. Lastly... it has repeatedly been beaten into our heads we are in a major budget shortfall. Rumor has been confirmed that 10,000 in countertops is being put in Scott Strongs home- so he is moving into an SNU house and most likely putting more than 50,000 into the home that he will rent or gt for free. 
  How degrading would it be to have your faculty people wholly dismantled but also forced to fix the house of the perpetrator who is constantly saying the school is in a budget shortfall, but spending excessive school allocated dollars to fund his endeavors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthaboutstuffandthings (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Budget Cuts