Talk:Regent University/Archive 1

message: Hi all.  I just edited the "undergrad" section.  I took out some language that seemed to be pulled from an advert or something: "boasts a world-class faculty".  I also added some info on course offerings.
12.210.136.121 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "No major media has covered Regent"?  Even if you don't like the Globe, you can't deny it's a major paper--it has the thirteenth highest circulation in the country.  Also, the criteria US News uses in its rankings are peer assessments by lawyers and judges, GPA, LSAT scores, acceptance rate, student/faculty ratio, employment rate, and bar passage rate compared to the avg bar passage rate of the state it's in.  The criteria Princeton Review uses are "student assessment of: whether there is a strong sense of community at the school, how aesthetically pleasing the law school is, the location of the law school, the quality of the social life, classroom facilities, and the library staff," which have no bearing on academic quality.Calliopejen1 12:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ungrad 

message: I kept the details, the specific ranking, of the U.S. News and World Report. I reverted the statement and higher in other rankings methodologies since it has no attribution, a violation of WP:V. I removed the wikipedia citation for although the ABA, LSAC, and AALS doesn't condone rankings as they can be "misleading and deceptive" but left the verbiage since it would be easy to add in citations from the wikipedia cite for this statement. To quote from WP:CITE:Note: Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources.(emphasis from the article)I removed the statement especially for smaller politically bent schools as it was not even in the wikipedia cite and is a violation of WP:OR. Therefore 12:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In tier 3 and tier 4 schools there is no ranking. Only the top 100. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-law/brief/glanc_03172_brief.php I don't know how they got 136 this is wrong.Wikidash 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that. But I don't have access to the full subscription to the information -- that has to be paid for. Therefore, I rely on the Boston Globe article for that detail who probably does have access to this information. Therefore 23:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. News and World Report rankings

message: I put back in this ranking. How is "conservative" not a valid interpretation of "leans most to the right"? Or is it the goal to excise this statistic entirely? Wikidash, I invite you to discuss this here rather than deleting such information wholesale from the article. Therefore 12:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look on the Princeton review lists http://www.princetonreview.com/law/research/rankings/rankings.asp Most conservative law school isn't a category. Someone made it up. This should be deleted entirely.Wikidash 02:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, Wikidash. But I don't believe that list is meant to be exhaustive but illustrative. The citation points to the existence of the category and is, I suppose, based on student's self described political stances. Therefore 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Princeton Review rankings for most conservative college

message: Wikidash -- why did you delete all of this verbiage? Your edit summary didn't discuss this. Please come to the talk page and discuss why you would like to reword this paragraph and we can seek consensus on a rewrite. Thanks. Therefore 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. attorneys controversy

message: Wikidash -- The "Professors Rock" citation was incorrect (it was pointing to the "leans to the right" info. I searched the Princeton Review extensively and can't find it. Please provide or it will need to be removed. Therefore 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:Calliopejen1 I got the reference: . But the school doesn't appear on the listing. Mercer is #9. I agree, then, that it should be deleted. Therefore 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, without a source it doesn't belong. This page is going to have to be watched. C56C 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.princetonreview.com/law/research/rankings/rankings.asp This is what the Princeton review calls it.Wikidash 02:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. But the category does not include Regent in its rankings. So how can it be included in the article? Therefore 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Professors rock

message: Calliopejen1 -- your rewrite makes the paragraph more readable and clear. I have a concern with:Though Savage's commentary, which focused on the law school, was mostly critical (he noted Regent's "dismal numbers" from past years and quoted a critic of the school who said "[y]ou can't underestimate the quality of a lot of the people that are there"),The quotation shouldn't be used as an example of Savage's criticism -- it's the opposite. Better to include the quotation as part of the noted improvements.
I also am concerned with the use of the word "commentary" in this context -- this wasn't a comment piece but a news article. Additionally, it is arguable that the wording "which focused on the law school, was mostly critical" could be excised as being unnecessary (Occam in mind) and is possibly a judgment call on your part. My reading of the article is that the real focus was on the Bush administration's hiring of sub-par candidates. What do you think? Therefore 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush administration hires 

message: Calliopejen1 -- I'll invite you once again to come to the talk page and discuss this issue.
You consider this quote:"You can't underestimate the quality of a lot of the people that are there."as a negative comment about the school, ala, I guess, Henry Adam's "There is no such thing as an underestimate of average intelligence." However, take this quote in Savage's context (emphasis mine):Even a prominent critic of the school's mission of integrating the Bible with public policy vouches for Regent's improvements. Barry Lynn , the head of the liberal Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said Regent is churning out an increasingly well-trained legal army for the conservative Christian movement.
"You can't underestimate the quality of a lot of the people that are there," said Lynn, who has guest-lectured at Regent and debated professors on its campus.The context makes it clear that Lynn was giving a warning not to underestimate them. Therefore, your framing it as a negative is your take (wp:or) and not Savage's -- and Savage's is the one that counts. —    ∴ Therefore  talk  :  20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again Therefore! I hadn't gone back to reread the article there, so I was just going by the meaning of the words alone.  If that's what Savage says, that's what Savage says.  However, considering it's so confusing I might omit it from the article.  Any plain reading of the quote suggests it means exactly the opposite, which probably would mislead readers.  Calliopejen1 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- I'll give a shot at rewrite, avoiding the confusing quote but keeping in Lynn's sentiment. —    ∴ Therefore  talk   20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, your rewrite is excellent. —    ∴ Therefore  talk   20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry Lynn quote -- negative or positive 

message: These competitions were removed again (I didn't put them back in). Please note that there is another notable reference to them: Bill Moyer's Journal,  quoting  This year a Regent team won the American Bar Association's Negotiation competition - previously won by Harvard.  Last year a Regent team won another national ABA Competition - previously won by Yale. This on top of Savage's reference (from the Boston Globe) along with the details in the school's press release makes this notable and should be included. C56C argues that this is not a "scoreboard." I am hoping that C56C is going through all the Notre Dame wiki pages and removing the mountains of results for the past 50 seasons for multiple sports. The reality is this competition was notable for a small college with a poor reputation. Savage and Moyers thought so. I think that should trump the opinion of others.   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't see how two wins are wiki-worthy. Should we also include Bill Maher's comedic remarks about this place too? Its trival, rankings are not. As for Notre Dame's article its law school doesn't have any of the trival information. So what are you referring to? I'm willing to bet ND's law school (being top ranked in the US) has won at least two competitions as well.C56C 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for being unclear. My point concerning Notre Dame was a counter to your "WP IS NOT a scorecard for schools". This page, one of many, indicates that is not the case. Yes, its about football and not legal competitions, but the point is clear: your statement is not, in fact, WP policy. These national wins (not scores, but the end result of a competitive series of moot courts) by Regent University, found notable by at least two WP:RS, WP:V journalists (Bill Maher, though much admired, is not a journalist -- not even a faux one), are notable. If ND's law school chooses not to include them, that isn't the guide for not including them here. I do understand that your opinion is that they are not notable. However, they are verifiable, notable facts from reliable sources. If Savage isn't considered a WP:RS, then how can the rest of the article stand? Is this really less notable than which Supreme Court decision one graduate of Regent considers most important? Please note what is notable: not actually the fact that they won the competitions, but that they unexpectedly won the competitions previously won by Harvard and Yale.   ∴ Therefore  talk   01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ABA competitions 

message: According to  the Alexandria campus is "transitioning" to online degrees for the DC area. Should mention of the campus be deleted as desired by User talk:Dgnjunk? However, according to the regent page, the School of Education will continue at the satellite campus. And the campus is mentioned at the School of Education's FAQ "Exactly where are your campuses located?" Answer: "There is also a satellite campus in the historic Old Town district of Alexandria, VA." Plus, the School of Education's Academic page lists, under "More Information", the DC campus. Without further verification, I don't see why the mention of the satellite campus should be removed.   ∴ Therefore  talk   22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the Alexandria campus exist still? 

message: I reverted Dgnjunk's (1st time editor, only editing this page) May 30 edits. He deleted en masse much of the article's content, including the name of the Chancellor (Pat Robertson) in the infobox, mention of Robertson in the history, mention of the US World rankings, all mention of Bush Administration hires, Monica Goodling -- all this without any comment or discussion. I added back in all of Dgnjunk's constructive edits, such as:
* Corrected (and cited) "establishment date" from 1977 to 1978
* Corrected (and cited) from 9 to 8 "established schools"
* Added citation for "The vast majority of Regent's students are enrolled in one of seven graduate or first-prof schools."
* Changed "VA" to "Virginia"
* Added School of Business is now the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship
* Changed Communication and the Arts to Communication & the Arts
plus minor mods to the Alumni (e.g., grad years).
I did not retain these deletions:
* The Alexandria satellite campus (see above)
* The fact that Pat Robertson is the chancellor and the founder
* Much of the history, including motto
* The (attributed) facts about their historical bar pass rates
* The (attributed) US News Report rankings. These rankings are a common gauge. However, through discussions on the talk page, balance was added by including criticism of the rankings.
* The (well attributed) Bush hires administration paragraph
* Mention of Monica Goodling
I have invited Dgnjunk to the talk page to discuss these items. On the 31st, 198.49.157.11 (an open Regent University IP) came on and attempted many of these same edits but were rv'ed by another editor.   ∴ Therefore  talk   17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of Dgnjunk's edits 

message: I removed this from the article:
---------------------------------------------------------
Controversy
Regent University has been in many controversies over the years. Including having scientific and historical teachings far outside the mainstream of what is considered factual. Also many scholars and student research has been called into question and proven wrong by much more quantitative, compelling and carefully done studies.
Aggressively Anti-Gay and Disproved Research
For example of poorly done research that has been disproved by studies performed all over the world and that has been rejected by all but the furthest ideological organizations such as The Family Research Council (Which Regent is rumored to have close ties with along with other far-right ultra-orthodox Christian Organizations; though this can not be proven) is research equating male homosexuality with sexual abuse of young boys. It claims homosexual adult men are much more likely to sexually abuse boys then heterosexual men. The "research" has reached this "conclusion" based on the fact that of sexually abused children 1/3 of the cases are thought to involve boys. The problem with this conclusion; studies have proven that 97% of sexually abused boys are abused by heterosexual men. Meaning only 3% of sexually abused boys are abused by homosexual and bisexual men. Many other claims in the study are also unfounded by much better research. The study's insult of Pro Gay Organizations has been unfounded and the attempt to link boy-love with homosexuality is not supported by any mainstream homosexual organization. The so called research can be found at this link  
For the truth about the matter based on reputable research click on this link
The university is so anti-gay that it limits what homosexual students can do in the privacy of their own dormitory "...homosexual conduct or any other conduct, which violates Biblical standards, is prohibited."
---------------------------------------------------------
It is written with a clear point-of-view, poorly sourced and makes many OR conclusions -- going as far as to bold "the truth." "Many scholars" is classic poorly sourced comments. The editor needs to rewrite after carefully reading WP standards.   ∴ Therefore  talk   21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of controversy section 

message: I removed the discussion of rankings altogether. Either take all rankings out (since all rankings are POV) or leave them be and accept that they will not always portray the school in a favorable light. (This is an encyclopedia, not a recruitment pamphlet.) It is most certainly not the appropriate venue to debate or contest the veracity of rankings generally. Madcoverboy 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pared down law school rankings 

message: Need to be careful not to take at face value the claims by Regent's administration that its curriculum is based on "Christian principles." The administration would like us all to believe that Regent is truly Christian unlike, say, Notre Dame or Pacific Lutheran or Southern Methodist. It is inaccurate to let Regent and its ilk appropriate "Christian" to mean only its version of Christian. The small edit I did makes that point -- simply sourcing the claim, which is baldly evident on the institution's web site and publications -- without being needlessly argumentative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.46.238 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remarks here certaintly don't sound like you're approaching from a neutral point of view at all.  Your edit does not make any point at all.  The article does not say anything about it being the only Christian principles or even which Christian principles, nor does it "appropriate" Christian or indicate anywhere that its only Regent's version.  Your edit has been reverted. AnmaFinotera 20:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AnmaFinotera that adding "the administration says" is not a NPOV approach. However, now that the topic has been broached, I am thinking that "a curriculum based on Christian principles" is problematic. Exactly what is the source for this statement? If you go here  it says,Regent University is the nation's academic center for Christian thought and action, with strategic campus positioning and a multitude of online learning programs available worldwide. That self-description, I don't believe, would be an appropriate description either. I don't see other Christian affiliated schools making this statement. I would recommend we excise that text from the lead. Then, if needed, this could be expanded in another section with both the school's characterizations balanced by other reliable, third party characterizations. Regardless
, I think that including "based on Christian principles" should be cut. Thoughts? SmallRepair 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've been mulling it over, I agree the statement as written can be problematic, however I do not think it should be cut all together, maybe just rewritten.  Perhaps rather than saying its courses are based on Christian principles, just note that it is a Christian private school similar to the way it is done in Taylor University, Baylor University, etc.  AnmaFinotera 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds perfectly NPOV and accurate. I'll let you change. SmallRepair 01:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, done.  Also tweaked it to read a little less stiff :P AnmaFinotera 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Christian principles" 

message: I removed "and is considered one of the most prestigious Christian law schools in the United States." from the "Law school" section as part of the description of the school. This a) belongs in the newly minted Reputation section and b) needs to have the opinion explicitly sourced. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was undecided about keeping it in, so I just tagged it, but I agree with the reasons for removal all together. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most prestigious Christian law schools in the United States. 

message: I just finished giving the article a little restructuring, and adding some sections with expand tags to encourage expansion and act as reminds for what's missing.  I also tagged the notable people section to go to prose rather than tables, and cleaned up some more references where possible. In doing this restructuring and clean up, I carefully studied the University Project MOS, and some of the featured university articles including Duke University, Texas A&M University, and Ohio Wesleyan University.  Hopefully others agree these are good changes and the new empty sections will encourage expansion.  I hope to work on those sections myself, as time permits, as well.  Disagree?  Suggestions? Feedback?  Let's discuss :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: My 2 cents: That is one ugly tag. ;) I recognize that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities#Structure states that alumni should not be lists but a) it is commonly used (no excuse, per se, I know) and b) I would doubt that it will be fixed. The alumni list is not like (say) Duke University's more weightier list which reads better as prose. On the other hand, there is List of Duke University people, List of Harvard University people, List of Princeton University people and List of Yale University people. Lists (not even tables) are used at Reed College, Lewis & Clark College, and on and on. If the tag wasn't so darn intrusive, I would have a less of a problem. But, nonetheless, I really don't mind either way. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, true on the tags, but certainly makes ya want to do something to deal with it (even if its just get rid of it ;)  I was thinking the alumni as prose would be better here in large part because it is a fairly short list.  Though it is true, lists are also very common, because they are just all around easier to create and maintain.  I think they just don't really do much to say why that alumni is notable, and tables are limited to how much can be added and still look semi-okay.  I had planned to spend sometime tonight working on prosing that section, but my wifi has been acting ridiculously flaky for the last few hours, so I didn't get a chance to. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your position. When an alumni section can be written in an interesting way, such as, "three presidents" or "a line of Senators" or such, it can be interesting. Frankly, I think in this case, a table is more readable. But if you put this into prose then naturally that will fit the Wikipedia standard. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize this is a small point (the tag bugs me for some reason). I'd like to take MIT as an example (it's fresh in my mind ;) ). Their alumni section is written in a prose manner:Many of MIT's over 110,000 alumni and alumnae have had considerable success in scientific research, public service, education, and business. 27 MIT alumni have won the Nobel Prize and 37 have been selected as Rhodes Scholars. ... MIT alumni founded or co-founded many notable companies ... MIT alumni have also led other prominent institutions of higher education ... More than one third of the United States' manned spaceflights have included MIT-educated astronauts. Prose is appropriate because it can be written in broad, general terms about large portions of their alumni. Additionally, there is listing of their notable alumni at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni in tables and lists. I don't believe that the list here can be written in a prose form that would be as general as MIT's. An alphabetic list in a tabular form appears to be more appropriate. Again, in contrast to my apparent need to continually argue my position, I don't hold it strongly -- I just hate that tag! ;) ∴ Therefore | talk 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, give me a little time to try writing it up as prose.  If it sucks, we can stick with the table ;)  I'm launching a huge project tomorrow, so after that (and a ton of sleep), I'll have time to really work on it with a clear mind (along with hopefully expanding those other sections). Just don't scroll down until then  *grin*  AnmaFinotera 20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up tag 

message: Substituted at 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment