Talk:Pensacola Christian College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archive

Talk:Pensacola Christian College/archive01

[edit] Neutrality tag

Several sections of this article need editing for NPOV and general Wikification. Both advocates and opponents of the college's philosophy should understand that a Wikipedia article is about facts rather than interpretation and opinion. Facts that make the college unique are important, but selectively choosing facts to illustrate a point violates NPOV. I suggest reading a variety of Wikipedia entries on other colleges. What are the essential facts that provide knowledge without inspiring favorable or unfavorable bias? That's what belongs in Wikipedia articles. Good luck in writing and editing - it's a learning process for everyone. --Ezratrumpet 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to review wikipedia's official neutral point of view policy. To rephrase what Idont Havaname has said elsewhere on the topic, lack of neutrality is not an adequate reason to delete text from an article, and writing from the perspective of people you disagree with is sometimes necessary. PCC's lack of accredition (and the potential impact this has on alumni) is an integral part of the college that should be presented in its wikipedia article. The same is true for the interracial dating controversy at Bob Jones University, where its inclusion adds a lot to the university's article and keeps it far from being just like any other school article. Also, as the NPOV tutorial states, "We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them." This includes both positive and negative views. As examples, the Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore articles have entire sections on people's criticisms. Take a look around wikipedia and you will find heaps of articles with both "for" and "against" sections. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Good comments. I concur that PCC's decision to remain unaccredited is an integral part of the college's uniqueness, and must remain part of the article. However, to say that this is definitely a Bad Thing is an opinion, and should not be attached as a commentary to a fact. Schools seek accreditation to further their own ends - accrediting agencies do not seek schools to accredit. Perhaps devoting a section of the article to PCC criticisms is in order. --Ezratrumpet 02:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Using a degree title is neither restricted nor illegal as long as the degree was legitimately earned from the school. The employer is responsible for ascertaining the value of an employee's degree. I don't think anyone's claiming that PCC is a diploma mill, which would be another thing entirely. Further, there is no citation for such a statement. Please restore my previous deletion of that phrase. --Ezratrumpet 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the tag since there is no current disagreement. Arbusto 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Accreditation / Teacher's Degrees

How is this proven, there can't be a 2006-2007 Student Handbook, because the schoolyear hasn't started yet, and that is when they hand them out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flgook (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for explaining your deletion. Unless someone can provide a verifiable source for this data, I think it should be left out. The data (with statistics) is probably too specific to be included unsourced, even with a {fact} tag. --DavidGC 09:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The statistic cited is extremely suspect since the Student Handbook--of any year--has never contained faculty information. The College Catalog contains this information, and its information does not support the original statistic. --68.209.195.2 13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowing

In reference to a recent edit, are there cases where students are shadowed but not expelled? --DavidGC 01:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah there are actually, a lot of times shadowing is a good indication but not necessarily for sure factually expulsion.Nik 06:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Noticed you edited that part in the article to correct the issue, so all is well. Cheers --DavidGC 01:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation

I removed the accrededation section. Something should be mentioned about the college's lack of accrededation, but the reason given was faulty. It stated that it could not be accredited when actually PCC has never made application for regional accrededation. PCC does not want it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustinGrice (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 June 2006.

The information is appreciated, but we need some kind of a source to back that up before removing a section from the article. See the policy about verifiablity at WP:V. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As has been noted before, under the doctrine of M:Inclusionism, interesting and unusual facts are included in articles by design. A college without accreditation strikes me as being very unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe the substance of the portion on accreditation should remain for now as it currently stands, which includes both the college's side that they have never tried for accreditation, as well as the other statement which provides a different perspective as to how they might fare in the process. In this case, the burden of proof rests on the person deleting the material, but I would think that the current language should be acceptable to all. Stylistic issues aside, both bits of info should probably be included in this very relevant section. --DavidGC 02:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Commentary regarding the value of an degree from a non-accredited school belongs elsewhere. The facts speak without need for interpretive statements. To say that the degree is "restricted or illegal" requires a serious source. There is nothing illegal about earning a degree from any school and claiming that accomplishment. To state that accomplishment as more than it is would be wrong - but not necessarily illegal. Think encyclopedia, not Peterson's Review. --Ezratrumpet 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious source. The wording is a standard template, {{unaccredited}}, used on the articles for many unaccredited universities. It represents some significant owrk on phrasing and neutrality. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that the use of unaccredited degrees is illegal in certain states (I.E. Oregon) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.104.239.17 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the above two points, I would also like to point out that verifiability, not truth is official wikipedia policy. As such, an editor deleting properly cited information from a reliable source because they feel it is "editorializing" strikes me as being highly irregular if not outright POV-pushing. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Student Voice

Is there a source for the last statement in the Student Voice section: "The Administration of the college has taken The Student Voice to court on several occassions, citing copyright infringement and cybersquatting. As of 2006, no ruling has established precedent for either the college or The Student Voice in these matters. The issues remain unresolved."

According to my research, there has been only one case in the National Arbitration forum in Pensacola Christian College Inc v. Peter Gage, in which the case was dismissed (PCC lost.)

While the difference between arbitration and litigation may seem semantic, PCC's religious beliefs probably prevent them from bringing others who they believe to be Christians to court, possibly explaining the use of the arbitration forum. Assuming that this is the only case between the two groups, stating that PCC brought the Student Voice to "court" and that they did so "on several occassions" is inaccurate.

Supporting the idea that the argument is indeed closed is Jenner & Block LLC v. Defaultdata.com's use of PCC v. Peter Gage being cited as precedent. --Masyukun 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Much of the content in this section appears POV and of questionable veracity. The text in question even notes the speculative nature of the comments. Does this "event" belong in an encyclopedia entry?--68.209.195.2 12:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The Student Voice section contains the following text at this time:
Two PCC alumni started an electronic newsletter in 1996 entitled The Student Voice. This newsletter voiced opposition to various rules and policies of the college. Horton responded to the newspaper's first issue with a speech in the campus chapel, calling the newspaper "an attack from Satan", reminding students that they agreed to follow the rules when they came, that they were not forced to attend the school, and that anyone involved with the newspaper was subject to expulsion. Shortly thereafter all active students who were on the email list of "The Student Voice" were expelled as well as anyone else who had possession or knowledge of individuals in possession of a printout of "The Student Voice". The following semester PCC banned all devices which would allow an individual to connect their personal computer to the internet. Later, The Student Voice was moved to PensacolaChristianCollege.com. The Student Voice released new issues regularly for two years and continued to release their newsletter irregularly through their website until 2003. As of 2006, their website still keeps an archive of the issues of The Student Voice, but it has not been updated since 2003.

-

Claims by former alumni from the year in question also mention a ring of student and internet pornography that was intercepted as well. It is possible that The Student Voice was not the sole reason for loss of internet access at PCC. During the Summer of 2004, a new wireless internet became available for students on campus.

-

While The Student Voice may present the truth in this story, no documentation has ever arisen to prove the events in question. Only a handful of individuals, outside of hearsay on The Student Voice website, even remember the incident, and their accounts vary.
Considering the 3rd of the above paragraphs, it is clear that the events contained in the two previous paragraphs are nothing more than heresay designed to promote a negative POV as evidenced by the testiony of its own author. While the 1st paragraph may contain some verifiable facts, the 2nd paragraph does not, with the possible exception of the final sentence.--68.209.195.2 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the first paragraph with the intention of explaining the incident in as neutral of a way as I could. As for the other two paragraphs, we need sources if they are to stay. We can and should use the Student Voice's website as a source, especially if they are the only source of some of the information (e.g. the text of the "attack from Satan" message from Dr. Horton; not all pages on their website have their bias, especially if they are transcripts of what administrators of the college have said). Originally, what I wrote in that section had citations throughout it, but someone else apparently removed them later. The separate article about the newsletter, at The Student Voice, still contains the citations for some of the sources. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved uncited material, pending verification

At 22:15 on 24 July 2006, 68.105.175.35 changed the final paragraph of the Rules and regulations section to the following:

Staring deeply into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex is sometimes known jokingly as "optical intercourse," or "making eye babies." Although a recent article regarding PCC has popularized these phrases, these phrases are, in fact, not used by authorities at PCC. However, the practice of sitting with one's face only millimeters away from that of one's boy/girlfriend and staring deeply into his/her eyes is indeed discouraged, especially by those who are forced to witness it.

At first blush this assertion smacks of original research and appears to contradict an existing citation from a reliable published source (and in fact that citation was deleted by the above editor). Pending verifiability from a published, reliable source, I am removing the claim from the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

At 08:59 on 25 April 2006, 208.11.8.10 changed the Accreditation section to the following:

A main factor contributing to PCC's lack of accreditation is its non-compliance with Section 3.7 of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' accreditation policies. Specifically PCC's faculty qualifications are substandard. Fewer than one in six professors at PCC hold the terminal degree in their field. In fact, of PCC's sixty-plus undergraduate programs, fewer than half boast a PhD level professor. Furthermore, more than one in three members of PCC's faculty received their graduate degree from Pensacola Christian College (Source: 2006-2007 Student Handbook).

Since there were concerns about the validity of this information (see Accreditation / Teacher's Degrees above), and as it lacked citation from a reliable published source, it has been removed from the article pending verification from a published, reliable source. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal is for WP:BLP. For other articles, add a {{fact}} tag to identify problem claims. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The following statements appear in the current version:

In a practice often referred to as "blacklisting," some students who have quit the college or been expelled are often told they cannot return to the campus for various reasons. If seen on campus, security escorts them off college property. The security office keeps pictures and information on all banned from the campus. Alumni who criticize the college are removed from the college mailing list and are put on the blacklist.

-

- In March 2006, the college banned several alumni from returning to campus because they criticized the college on the popular website MySpace. Students are eligible for expulsion if their Myspace profiles contain material the college considers inappropriate, such as unapproved music or pictures. College staff members surf the Myspace and Student Voice websites to see what current and former students are saying about the college. [citation needed]

All of the above is unsubstantiated and appears solely to attempt to paint the institution in an inappropriate light. What is the source for these claims? As they are highly inflammatory and POV, a credible source should be provided.--68.209.195.2 04:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Important note - colleges and schools seek accreditation in order to be identified with the accrediting agency. It is wholly voluntary. Accreditation by any agency is not essential to being or becoming a successful college or school. Individual states provide guidelines to open a college or school, but accreditation is voluntary. --Ezratrumpet 04:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge A Beka Book article

I believe the article A Beka Books should be merged with Pensacola Christian College, as they are closely associated with the college. Also I bring to attention Bob Jones University Press, which is as large if not larger than A Beka Books, it is part of Bob Jones University. Mgroop 13:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I also agree with the merge. -Will Beback 17:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Howell

I removed this because of no proof. Nik 21:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again after 70.21.126.208 re-added it [1]. Generally speaking, lotto winners are hardly notable. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Janelle

What exactly makes this non-graduate "notable"? IMDB shows his with one minor role in a non-released film. Appears that this entry was added by Patrick to self-promote. --Landcruiser2 12:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Value judgments re: "optical intercourse"

I removed the following from the tail of the "optical intercourse" paragraph:

(though such actions are not proper to do in public anyway.)

This statement is making a value judgment and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. The statement had been removed once, but was reverted back in. I'm guessing that this was an inadvertent revert intended to restore the citation that followed. --grummerx 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/n/Talk%7EPensacola_Christian_College_1acf.html"