Talk:Kepler College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Citations for Positive Criticism

The negative criticism has some references. However, there are none for the apologetic section. The author is requested to cite the sources for the arguments in defence of the college. Also, the apologetics section opening line was recently changed to "In answer to the above, I would ask what better place......." This makes the argument look as if it is one individual person's POV. Quoting from the Wikipedia project page Wikipedia:Describing points of view,

At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. In    
Thought du Jour Harold Geneen has stated: [1]

    "The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that  
facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because   
of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes 
all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of 
View" policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

    * Who advocates the point of view
    * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

So, kindly add the sources for the arguments in defence of the college. Thank you for your effort. Savio mit electronics 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Above is now irrelevent since the apologetic section has been removed by A.J.A. Savio mit electronics 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-posted the argument that A.J.A. removed and added the name of the source to make it clear that it is one person's point of view. However, in this case, the post is not an unsubstantiated POV because the source is the president of the college herself and is the most reliable and valid information on the College available. Gary Lorentzen

OK, the post has been once again removed by A.J.A. So, I reposted again, editing it down a bit, and hopefully removing any sense of 'advertising.' If this is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature, why is it an 'offense' to describe the history and mission of the college? How is that 'advertising?' I will not give up on this. Kepler has a right to be listed as an authorized college in the State of Washington with a short description of its history and mission. If your prejudice is so strong that it can't allow this, then all of Wikipedia is a sham. You opened the door to opinions under the criticism and controversy header. I have a right to express my opinions as much as John Silber does or as much as you do in quoting John Silber. If there are specific places that you believe 'violate' the rules of Wikipedia, then edit those specific places, why block delete the whole thing? The answer can only be because you're a closed-minded, biased individual who will only allow your own point of view to be expressed. I will not go away. Gary Lorentzen

[edit] Reminder

By longstanding consensus, editors with a vested interest in the content of a subject should not edit the article directly, with the possible exception of correcting minor and uncontroversial erres such as spelling. Guy 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Please clean up your additions: Be aware that wikipedia has a strict policy on presenting anti/psuedo-science NOT as fact. Somone with an MA quoted from the "school's" website will not be presented as an authority that is better than the academic conclusions of astrologies. Historians in that context are used as a strawman, why not mention scientists conclusions of astrology? Arbusto 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see my changes were reverted. In a few days I will clean this up for the undue weight on psuedoscience in this. Example of a serious problem: what does a person with a degree in Botany have to do with being competent to know about astrology? Arbusto 16:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Contents

I have switched the order of the article's two sections, Criticisms/Controversy and Description, placing the former last and vice-versa. The reason: it seemed strange to criticize a subject before describing it. If any critics feel threatened by this, worrying that naive readers will overlook the criticisms and be unduly influenced, you may take comfort in this: critics now get the last word. fuper 04:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)