Talk:Louisiana Baptist University/Archive 1

message: Where is the dispute? This is all an invention by Duncharris and should be ignored until he has some proof.--Big Lover 20:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute, Gastrich under a pseudonym, is if this is really worthy of being an encyclopeia article.  This is not an invention by Duncharris, it's an invention by you. Harvestdancer 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

message: A few things:
1. LBU claims that they are listed in the directory, but they are not listed in the directory. I have changed the article to reflect this.
2. AACTS has no status with any federal agency. Whether or not it "desires" any status with any federal agency is their business. You can put it in the AACTS article if you like. If you can provide a source from AACTS saying they have not attempted to secure status with the government, then go ahead and put it in. 
Sdedeo 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: accrediting

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 18:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: The following paragraph needs some help. Not only is it enormous, but it needs to be edited for nPOV. I'm going to paste it here, then I'm going to make some edits, so that it will be improved.
Unlike accredited schools and even many that are not accredited, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. A master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and a dissertation obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is also despoited in the United States Library of Congress, available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. Because the policy at LBU does not require these fairly standard practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction. On the other hand, students of the institution claim that LBU does require graduate students to provide hardbound copies of the thesis or the dissertation to the University. It is then stored in the University library. Interested parties wishing to examine a thesis or dissertation are permitted to do so, but may not obtain or examine it by conventional channels. They must visit this library to conduct the examination. Oddly, however, LBU students questioned about this seem unable to identify the exact location or name of the building that houses the library or, failing that, the exact location of the building in which the collection of graduate documents is kept. The University web pages are no more informative with respect to this, rather important piece of information. This has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine the intellectual and academic credentials of an LBU graduate.
New paragraphs:
Unlike accredited schools, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. A master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and a dissertation obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is also despoited in the United States Library of Congress, available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. Because the policy at LBU does not require these practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction. 
Students of the institution cay that LBU does require graduate students to provide hardbound copies of the thesis or the dissertation to the University. It is then stored in the University library. Interested parties wishing to examine a thesis or dissertation are permitted to do so, but may not obtain or examine it by conventional channels. They must visit this library to conduct the examination.
Why changes were made:
1. Removed "and even many that are not accredited". Need proof or else its POV.
2. Changed "Because the policy at LBU does not require these fairly standard practices" to "Because the policy at LBU does not require these practices". Need proof that these practices are fairly standard for universities of its type or of universities in general or else its POV.
3. Changed "On the other hand, students of the institution claim that LBU does require" to "Students of the institution say that LBU does require". Changed "claim" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial - "Minding your nuances" for why)
4. Removed "Oddly, however, LBU students questioned about this seem unable to identify the exact location or name of the building that houses the library or, failing that, the exact location of the building in which the collection of graduate documents is kept. The University web pages are no more informative with respect to this, rather important piece of information. This has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine the intellectual and academic credentials of an LBU graduate." because:
a) Who are these students?
b) Were they distance learning students or on-campus students? It would be understandable if distance learning students didn't know where the library in Shreveport, Louisiana was located. 
c) Why should the university web site tell people the location of the physical, campus library? Is this unusual that it doesn't?
d) To say "this has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine . . ." sounds very POV. Who are these many people and can you verify this? --Jason Gastrich 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem paragraph 

message: The "Degrees Offered" section should be deleted, its long and provides no details. It is irrelevant and sounds like a commerical. Compare this page to Stanford University and Yale, no descriptions of individual degrees. If it is not deleted the section should be expanded on to demonstrate why the section holds value. Wiki does not need to generally describe unaccredited degrees, its on the LBU page if the reader cares.
* Good point.  Also, a general comment about how to earn credit is good enough.  Anything more specific than that (especially something as lame as "read this book and write a report") sounds like it's selling the school.  Specifics of the payment plan (if only because it can change without notice) also read like a sales pitch.  WarriorScribe 05:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Degrees Offerred

message: It seems to me that more rational minds here can come to some sort of standard of concensus with respect to notability of alumni.  I will say, again, that we can't just arbitrarily decide what is notable and what is not, or that standard can spill across all of the college pages on Wikipedia and the lists will become unwieldy.  As it is, Wiki seems to have some standards, most of which are not met by those Gastrich insisted on listing.
Meanwhile, the deletion of the diploma mill commentary was definitely out of line.  Like it or not, it's a factor in the history of LBU and should be addressed.  Wiki is not a sales platform for Gastrich or any other alumni of any other college.  Hell, not too long ago, I went to the Pikes Peak Community College article and de-POV'd it a bit, and it's the first place that awarded me a post-high school degree.  I have fond memories of PPCC, but that doesn't mean I can't see past that and make the article more POV.  At any rate, encyclopedias are not about hiding stuff some of us might not like.  LBU has had to deal with the issue, and it should be in the article.  WarriorScribe 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is locked until concensus can be reached 

message: This discussion is peppered with words like "therefore", "because", "so" and other terms that imply conclusions or logical deductions. Original conclusions are original research. We are not here to conclude anything. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. In this case, if there are sources which have made critical comments about the subject then a summary of those criticisms should appear, along with any sourced rebuttal (not just our own rebuttal). We should mention verfiable, uncomfortable viewpoints, but not sensationalize them either. Keeping ourselves to reliable sources will greatly limit the scope of the article. This is just an encyclopedia entry, so let's not get too worked up about it. Let's work towards consensus instead. We don't have to like the outcome, just tolerate it. Be nice to your fellow editors and treat them as you'd want to be treated. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning link in the See also section has underscores.  These need to be turned into spaces.  I would do it myself, but due to the article's status, I cannot.  --Cyde Weys 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underscores 

message: Admin, do you still think we need 507 words on diploma mill allegations? Or do you think that might be a little overboard considering the size of the entry? --Jason Gastrich 08:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a little long, but that's primarily because I think I can summarize it a bit... rather than it being any specific length. Trying to figure out the number of words it "should be" is a pretty arbitrary exercise. - RoyBoy 800 08:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There, that's a bit better. Man, I can Wikify like a mofo. - RoyBoy 800 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  507 words 

message: Where is the campus?  Looking at the LBU Web site it appears to be one building (http://www.lbu.edu/maccampus.html) in a strip mall. Is that correct? Also, I was looking through the credentials of the faculty and it looks like almost all the faculty that hold doctoral degrees earned them at LBU, which is not accredited (http://www.lbu.edu/macfacultyandstaff.html). That's not a good sign.  I think this article is completely notable but probably not for the reason the original authors had in mind. Crunch 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you are hitting all the nails on the head.  They also offer credits for 'life experience'. It seems to take 3 years or less to get a Ph.D. There is no doubt that there is 'some' work involved but I suspect that is just to spin along the customers to get more money from them (sorry but I am very cynical about this place). David D. (Talk) 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I do think it's a valid article. These type of pseudo universities are a real entity in America (and off-shore, etc.) and definitely should be described and included in Wikipedia. I don't know if they're scamming the students. It doesn't look like the students have to do much work to get in, pay much in tuition, or do much real work while they're enrolled, but it's a PR scam and an abuse of the word "university."  The argument, obviously, centers around how to describe such a place in a NPOV way. Crunch 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PR scam might be a better description, although certainly POV in the artcile itself.  I might add I voted to keep this article when it was up for AfD. I agree there should be an article but I was not expecting all the spin off articles based on LBU's "notable" status in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus?  Faculty with Doctorates from Accredited Schools? 

message: I understand that administrators are allowed to edit a locked page, but it seems to me the point of locking a page should be to "freeze" it until disputes can be settled, not to allow free reign in editing by someone who represents one side of the dispute.  I believe the continual editing that has taken place of this page by one admnistrator (clearly evident in the page history) who has a particular stand in the debate over this page represents abuse of the administrator role Crunch 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too thought it was strange although Royboy has been soliciting from all parties involved. I had assumed he was getting the page into a state where compromise discussions can begin. However, with the current Gastrich RfC distraction those discussions have not begun. Primarily the Gastrcih RfC was caused by the activity here since Gastrich made a fork on the disputed LBU notable alumni. That led to the string AfD's. Hopefully when the dust settles a community consensus can be found for this page. Once we have defined the content of this page everything else will fall into place. And everyone will live happily ever after? David D. (Talk) 17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I see that now.  Still, I'm not sure it sets the best example to make all these edits while the AfD is still open and the page is locked. Crunch 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider everything on this talk page as "compromise discussions", even though they regularly diverged and were combative; and I believe it is a good example of how to reach compromise in an edit war situation. As the protection template states, the lock is not an endorsement of the current version of the page. If you find the edit(s) unsatisfactory, or you think someone can edit this article without taking sides, then your input is welcome. - RoyBoy 800 20:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification.  I think it's a good idea but the process you're taking hasn't been made very clear.  What I first saw is that the page was locked and that edits were being made. I really had to spend a lot of time going through all your discussions and then starting this topic to get an idea of what was actually going on.  I hate to suggest adding yet another post here, but it might be worth it to let people know that's it's being done in an attempt at a compromise without turning the page into a battleground.  Some of us, like me, have come to this page after getting involved in the AfD issue involving related pages and haven't been up to speed.  As for the edits themselves, I think most editors on Wikipedia could edit this page without taking sides. The perception of taking sides is in the eye of the reader and that's very difficult to control. Thanks again for your efforts at collaboration and compromise. Crunch 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, and I anticipated this influx; and you are absolute right... I should have added in my edit summaries "as per talk" with a link to the appropriate section. While "taking sides" may have been a poor choice of words, it does outline that I fundamentally disagree with the notion an editor can become knowledgeable enough about the issues, and proceed without forming some opinion on the article. (while I haven't taken a side per say, I do have my own position) To not have a position (or a "side", which incorrectly infers only two sides) on an article you edit is, as I see it, a paradox. - RoyBoy 800 23:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we agree.  I think I could edit this article in so it reads as an NPOV piece, though I'm not offering.  Do I have an opinion about the subject matter? Absolutely. Still, I think I am capable of putting that aside and doing an NPOV edit.  I think there are plenty of editors here who could do this as well.  It's not so much about "taking sides" or not taking sides, it's about seeing the essential factual elements of the subject matter and getting them down on paper (or pixels).  Obviously some subjects are trickier and more controversial than others. Crunch 23:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crunch, are you a true blue Wikipedian? :"D In my partial defense talk page headers were being renamed frequently, and a significant amount of discussion started on my talk page; making references initially tricky. - RoyBoy 800 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I'm not sure what "true blue Wikipedian" means. I'm still kind of new around here and don't have all the lingo. Sorry to sound so stupid ...  Crunch 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problemo, its not a set definition... but rather an offhand comment by me to encompass those who really believe in the viability of this project. And nothing here indicates you are stupid in any capacity. - RoyBoy 800 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, just like to its real-life def!  Sorry, again, I'm a tad dim right now.  Not sure if I'm true blue or not.  Some days yes, others not so much. Have had some good experiences on some articles.  Others have gotten out of hand -- surprisingly not so much in this particular case, which I think has turned a good corner. I think "the project" is in the very, very early stages of something that will evolve a lot, so I'll hang around a bit. Crunch 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of editing by administrators 

message: I find the statement that the university offeres "250 ground-based courses" perhaps a bit misleading, since this page:  http://www.lbu.edu/maconcampus.html from their web site lists only 10 courses to be offered in the Spring 2006 semester and further says that if there are not more than 5 students enrolled in a class it will not be held.  This latter statement indicates that there may be a history of low enrollment.  I understand that even at a large, fully accredited institution not all courses are offered every semester. But the ratio of 250:10 seems extreme and misleading.  If there are indeed a possible 250 ground-baesd courses available to be taught but not all are taught each semester, I would suggest this change:
::LBU offers a curriculum of over 200 ground-based [or on-campus] courses, with approximately ten different courses made available to students each semester.
Unless I'm missing something from the web site, I don't see a differentiation between undergraduate and graduate course offerings. Are these all undergrad courses? Am I correct in interpreting that all masters and doctoral students complete course work independently outside of the classroom?  The information on course work required at the graduate level is very vague. Crunch 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. - RoyBoy 800 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  250 ground-based courses