Talk:California Biblical University and Seminary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Creation

  • Article created due to the controversy at Robert Morey's AfD (article deletion discussion). It would be nice to have a record of the school. Information taken from that article. Comments? Arbustoo 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of title.

I have removed Dr. from in front of Morey's name to be more consistent with how we have treated titles from unacreddited institutions (see for example Peter Ruckman. This decision was made after discussion with User:PSRuckman (see his talk page). JoshuaZ 06:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Curious about remove of "Dr.". If you note he has a doctorate (DMin) from Westminster (ATS) then he has an accredited doctorate. The DMin is listed by the US Dept of Ed/National Science Foundation as a degree equivalent to the PhD in terms of being a higher level doctoral degree (as opposed to degrees with doctor in their title that are really first professional degrees).

Nordundsud 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

_____________________________________________________________

It does not matter. According to wikipedia's article MOS:BIO academic doctorates do not use the title of dr. Only md's, medical doctors, can use the title of doctor for formatting this website.

________________________________________________________________

I find that amusing since in actuality the academic doctorates are the "real" doctorates. According to the US Department of Education/National Science Foundation, degrees like PhD, EdD, DMin are a class of doctorates that are academic and equivalent (though PhD is a research doctorate and Ed'Ds often and DMin's are professional doctorates). They presume having a Masters degree/first professional degree already. MD's, JD's, DC's, MDiv's and so on are classified by the US Dept of Ed/national Science Foundation as "first professional degrees" that are not equivalent to the doctorate in that they do not follow the same structure even though they have the "docotrate" in the title.

In one sense then the title "Dr." belongs to the PhD EdD, DMin more so than the MD, DC, etc.

Interestingly enough, I understand that in England the MD degree was actually an undergraduate (first professional degree). Somewhat like the BD used to be (now an MDiv). Dr. Bear has an amusing story about that.

I realize there is nothing you can do about the logic or non logic of the Wiki MOS but thought I would share my amusement.

Nordundsud 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)(Academic Dr.) NordundsudNordundsud 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________

No kidding someone with a doctorate is a doctor... that isn't the issue had you read the link above or had someone explain what the link above states.

You misread or failed to read. The MOS:BIO, as others in related articles pointed out, this is a wikipedia formating issue: Manual of Style=MOS and BIO=Biography. I realize that it is very important for you to use these titles rather than having actually expertise or credibility, but I thought I'd point out you should read the article I linked before copying and pasting the obvious.

I just noticed you claimed to have your doctorate from an unaccredited school. No wonder you have such a drive for using these titles. You mail ordered a degree from a bunch of uneducated people selling titles. Having an unaccredited degree is worthless and it is dishonest to call yourself doctor. You should be ashamed every time you allow someone to call you that Mr. Nordundsud.

________________________________________________________________

First, you are rude, sarcastic, and defensive. Actually, you ought to be ashamed.

Second, you missed my statement that I did not hold you responsible for the logic or illogic or Wiki's MOS.

Third, I actually have an accredited doctorate and am working on an unaccredited doctorate. You are defensive in this regard to the doctoral title so I assume you feel somewhat inferior. That is your problem and not mine.

Fourth, your cowardly assertion that I mail ordered a diploma from an unaccredited school is nonsense. First, I am working on a degree from an unaccredited school. Second not all unaccredited schools are mills (I could educate you on this subject but it would use up to much space). In regards to LBU, no one gets a degree by mail for money. LBU is endorsed by the 4000 Church BBFI as a denominational school, endorsed by the 50,000 member American Association of Christian Counselors, accepted by the US military for chaplaincy (no easy task), and has had commencement speakers ranging from Paige Patterson to the Attorney General of the United States. None of which is accreditation but neither is it indicative of a mill. I could go on to show you several individuals who have been accepted into higher level programs at accredited universities on the basis on their LBU degree.

Fifth, as noted above I do not need the unaccredited degree I am working on to be referred to as "Dr." because I already have an accredited one but if you feel more comfortable basking in the glow of my superior intellect without refering to me as "Dr."....feel free to call me "Your Grace" or "Your Emminence", "Your most learned majesty" and so on. Now be a good chap and chill out.


Nordundsud 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)NordundSudNordundsud 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that you have an accredited academic doctorate (save something theological) for several reasons. The need for titles shows how pitiful this really is and what this school really is for: ego. Someone who spoke at this or that place or getting accepted as a military chaplain means nothing. So you have a bunch of unqualified people running around starting "schools" who want people to address them as "dr."

__________________________________________________

Kuhhh Duhhhh....theology is academic, though mine is in counseling. Someone with a ThD has somewhere around 120 credits BA, then 120 graduate plus the doctoral credits and Hebrew and Greek. Actually theology was once called the "Queen of Sciences". You and I do not know one another but actually I do not go around calling myself "Dr." just my first name. However as I have an earned and accredited docotrate I could rightfully be refered to as "Dr." anywhere someone else is refered to as Ms or Mr.

To say that the fact that LBU's grads can get into the chaplaincy and that high profile figures have chosen to speak at LBU and their endorsements by highly credible organizations means nothing is nonsensical. It must means something as it gives the degree some credibility and for certain things utility (eg Chaplaincy) therefore it must mean something. That is inherent in the fact of utility. Your remark smacks of "Nanny nanny boo boo" and "Oh ya sez you" retoric.

Are you jealous of people with accredited doctorates? Usually people who are upset about giving people the respect they deserve for achievements are insecure and jealous. It has nothing to do with egalitarianism and everything to do with fear that someone has a bigger slice of the pie. Get over it dude or dudette, you can acheive peice of mind wherever you are at in life. Read "Scripts People Live".

[With love from NordundSud, Doctorate - Honors Society -(4.0 GPA in every grad school course ever taken at accredited schools) - High Achiever & all around great guy :-) Seriously, I am being funny (except the above is true) for your amusement since you got so strangely spiteful early on- I really do go by my first name even with my staff. Are you having a bad day? Bad life? Degree Envy?]

Nordundsud 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)NordundSudNordundsud 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A Phd in counseling, you can do that type of "degree" online from an "accredited" school. Walden University[1] a regionally accredited school has a doctorate in counseling for 32 units. According to the description: "The specialization in Counseling Psychology prepares you to practice as a licensed psychologist who works with clients to promote functional relationships, healthy lifestyles, and positive career choices and roles."

I'm hardly impressed and it backs up what I said about me doubting you have a doctorate in anything academic. Also strange how there is an honors society for your graduate program. I've never known any honors society for any graduate school since grad schools will dismiss students who fall below a 3.0. Having good grades is expected. As for degree envy, unlike you I don't need to enter my experiences into this debate. (But it was just so important for you to mention you have a doctorate in "counseling.")

People with unaccredited degrees aren't doctors and people who have doctorates in things like Christian, divinity, and other subjects that are not provable fact from accredited schools are on the fringes. The person you go to at a hospital is a doctor, the people who study organisms, linguistics, the earth, mathematics, etc are doctors. Someone with a fringe degree is looking for the same crediblity without doing such difficult work in prusuit of interests that border on megalomania.

_________________________________________________________________

First, I know about Walden and most other distance learning programs. I do not know how they calculate "units" but you will not find a PhD program in Counseling below 60 credit hours (I think Touro University International has a PhD in Health Sciences that was around 48 though). Even in terms of a practical seminary level, Southern Christian University has a Regionally Accredited DMin that is 60 credit hours (AAMFT approved and Regionally Accredited).

Second, I am going to go easy on you since I do not get the impression you know much about academics to begin with, don't think you have a doctorate (maybe not even a Masters degree). You do not understand what various degrees take. A PhD in Counseling is an earned academic doctorate as surely as one in linguistics. Frankly, an accredited ThD (Theology) is one of the more difficult doctorates. B.A. 120+ credits, MDiv (90 credit hours- with biblical Greek and Hebrew), MTh (30 credit hours), then earn the ThD (sometimes with additional foreign language requirements). A PhD in Linguistics is much less. You cracked me up as you are the first person I have ever heard call Ph.D.'s in Counseling or Theology "fringe degrees". That clinched it that you are not versed in academics.

Third your medical doctor is a "doctor" in the sense of the profession but in terms of a 'real" doctorate...no. That is why in Britain and at one point Australia it was a Bachelors degree (first professional) degree. It is part of what you might call ego & degree inflation. That is why lawyers in the US also went from earning a LLB to a JD (Doctor of Jurisprudence). In Canada, Britian it is a LLB. M.D.'s, D.O.'s, D.C.'s are classified by the US Dept of Education/National Science Foundation as "first professional degrees" as opposed to real "doctorates". DMin's and EdD's and DBA's for instance fall in the category with the PhD in their classfication because they are earned after a Masters or first professional degree. The DMin for instance is usally earned after a 90 credit hour Masters of Divinity.

What would you know about the work level of an accredited doctorate. Hoped this help educate you about education. You sound for all the world envious of those with a doctorate.

Yes I am brilliant :-) but humble (joke).

Nordundsud 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC) His Emminence the most Imperial Rt. Reverend Academic Majesty NordundSudNordundsud 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continual deletion of information

The seems to be an organized attempt to remove cited criticism off the article. Ironically one IP wrote "Keep deleting factual information and we can keep putting it back in there" when deleting information on it lacking accreditation, its founded charged with academic fraud, and other criticism. That person then added in uncited claims. CaliEd 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited critical opinion

Not being part of any organized drive to do anything, I have removed a paragraph of OR. inserted as OR without pretense otherwise and no attempt at sourcing. Such material cannot remain. if an ed. can find such views in a published source then a short quotation can be appropriately inserted, but no individual eds comment on what the subject does or does not know is appropriate for WP. This is pretty basic. The portion with an attributed source was not removed.DGG 04:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary reverts

User:KillerChihuahua and friends seem to have a problem with some encyclopedic cleanup I've attempted to do on this article. The sections were incredibly sloppy and poorly-written, so I tried to help with that; when I tried to delete one small piece that was not only obviously POV, it didn't even belong in that section, KC got upset and reverted everything I had done; and when I said fine, let's leave that quote in but move a paragraph up, that got reverted too; these folks don't even like me changing one word in an uncited section to make it work better until someone finds a cite for it.

Come on, guys, let's work together to make this better. What seems to be the problem here? --profg 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OM, please explain how my latest edit is POV. Seriously, I don't even HAVE a POV on this issue, or school, or guy, or whatever! All I did was simply moved one paragraph up to make more sense in context; corrected some poor grammar; and modified one word in an uncited section. Please, before you go reversing my edit, assume good faith. This article is incredibly poorly-written, and my edits are helping to clean it up. Thanks. --profg 18:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good edits, Orlady. That uncited paragraph is what I've been complaining about all along. Very unencyclopedic. --profg 02:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last paragraph

Does anyone have any sources at all for the last paragraph? It is full of unacceptable weaseling (some people think... etc) and is utterly unsourced. Unless someone has a source, I will remove this paragraph. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I agree with KC. I've been pointing this out for some time now, and even stuck a weasel word in there to make it consistent with the rest of the unsourced stuff. Please do remove. --profg 15:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Amazingly, that content has been in the article since June 2006, when it was added by User:Sahih al bukhari. I left a note regarding this conversation on that user's talk page. The templates I inserted in that paragraph should alert readers that there's something wrong, but I agree that it definitely would be better to delete the entire paragraph. --Orlady 16:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the last 3 paragraphs of the article (including the one discussed here). Not only were they poorly sourced and potentially inflammatory content about a living person, but they were about Morey, not about CBUS. Also, I was unable to determine who the widely quoted "Jon Nelson" is (other than an atheist who writes articles posted on a website) -- criticisms like his should be accompanied by some indication of who he is and why we care about his comments. Here's the diff showing what I removed. --Orlady 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Robert Morey was formerly part of this article, and frankly, there are problems with both articles which will be helped by a merge. There is insufficient content on Morey for an article; there is duplication across the articles; much of the controversy about the seminary is about Morey. The article on Morey was previously deleted, and I recreated it in the hopes that the Morey content would stay in the Morey article and that enough sourced information could be found on Morey to warrant a separate article. This has not proved to be the case. I suggest we merge Morey into California Biblical University and Seminary, trimming unsourced and questionable content. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Reasonable, and reduces BLP issues. Support. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we merge Robert Morey into this article? His notability is related to this group, but he has a substantial and well-sourced biography of his own. If his notability is solely related to this group then it might make sense. 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)~~

Wil, I just suggested that, look at the section above. GMTA - I guess I'm not the only one thinking this would be best. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger should occur, but in the other direction, and both articles should survive. Make the California Biblical University and Seminary a short one focused on the institution, and move most content about Morey out of this article and into the article about Morey. The content of this article that is focused on the controversy surrounding Robert Morey's views does not belong in this article, because it is only very peripherally connected with the California Biblical University and Seminary. His notability is NOT solely related to California Biblical University and Seminary, but rather is due to his writings and actions. (One of his actions was establishing this institution, so its existence and notability are largely due to him, not the other way around.) Moving the content about Morey into this article will not really change the BLP problem. Retitling it will not change the fact that it is negative and unsourced content about a living person. The fundamental problem is that the content about Morey is dreadful -- the problems with sources and POV need to be fixed, not moved around Wikipedia. --Orlady 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak merge. Orlady is correct, Morey is notable on his own, while CBUS is possibly not. There is a lot of overlap in articles; while merger may not be the best course of action, if it does occur, it should be in the other direction. --profg 15:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, Morey has been deleted three times, and this article has never been, so the notability is to this article. If merge occurs, it is Morey -> CBUS. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 46,800 Google results for "Robert Morey", 610 for "California Biblical University". I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'. --profg 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears to me (for example, from perusal of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Morey) that the previous deletions were due largely to POV issues and other article-quality issues. Some participants in the AFD discussion who supported deletion asserted "nonnotable", but from their comments it appears some of the people who wanted to delete the article thought (incorrectly, if the article history is to be trusted) that the article was promotional puffery on behalf of Morey. --Orlady 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You are correct, Orlady - I started the current article on Morey, and one of my biggest problems was finding any reliable sources at all. almost all of what I did find was overwhelmingly critical, which of course is not surprising given the man's bigotry and ignorance, but it did make it hard to write anything remotely approaching a reasonable biography. However, the point remains; the bio has issues this article does not have, and IMO moving the relevant stuff here and combining would resolve a lot of issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Moving the content of the Robert Morey article into this article might resolve some issues. However, the subject of this article is California Biblical University and Seminary, not Robert Morey. While the California Biblical University and Seminary article appropriately needs to include some information about Morey, it is difficult to see why an article about one educational institution would include detailed discussion of matters such as Morey's crusades against Islam or the alleged inadequacies of books called The Islamic Invasion and The New Atheism. Morey is the main topic of that content, not the CBUS. --Orlady 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)