Template talk:MethodistColleges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Template This article has been rated as template-Class on the quality scale.

You're going to have to use short names, leaving off "college", etc. See the University System of Georgia template for an example on the Georgia Tech page.

Contents

[edit] Inclusion of colleges

Are these current affiliations with the church or colleges that have historically been affiliated? I spot a lot of colleges that are no longer afiliated with the church but are still on this list. --Liface 18:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the University of Puget Sound because I'm sure it's no longer affiliated. --Liface 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed Dickinson College for the same reason. -MrFizyx 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose someone should find a list of currently-sponsored colleges and edit the list. --Liface 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a list, go for it. Seems the creator of this beast has long since disappeared from the 'pedia. -MrFizyx 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed Duke University since it's no longer affiliated. See [1]. If this template said "historical ties to the Methodist Church" or "Methodist related," Duke could be included, but it's definitely not "affiliated" -Bluedog423Talk 00:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ATTENTION: Duke and Dickinson and Puget Sound ARE still affiliated with the U.M. Church!! Check their websites if you have any doubt. Or contact them. So is Ohio Wesleyan -- still VERY much a U.M. school!!!! Also see [2] for full details. Thanks. Pastorwayne 11:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I go to Puget Sound, and this is incorrect. "The era of President Phillip M. Phibbs (1973-1992) marked a turning point for the institution. In 1980, the Methodist Church divested its legal ties to the institution while maintaining historical ties." [3] --Liface 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Liface!!! Pastorwayne has been forcefully inserting links to various college pages lately and getting into arguments about it. It seems that his relgious passion clouds sound reason but apparently is not helping him make new friends here. :( WikiprojectOWU 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
We should go through the list of these colleges, making sure each is currently affiliated with the methodist church. --Liface 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please -- it IS sound reason to include the schools I have included. Please visit the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry of the United Methodist Church for the definitive list. [[4]] Thanks! Pastorwayne 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll rehash my arguments from Pastorwayne's talk page here: This is incorrect. Your logic is that once something is affiliated with something else, it is forever affiliated with that thing! Germany is affiliated with the Nazis! Michael Jordan with the Chicago Bulls, and so on and so forth. These schools divested their affiliation with the Methodist church for a reason. Also this list is outdated, incorrect and should not be relied on. Furthermore, it says "United Methodist" related schools, not affiliated. --Liface 18:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
the list at the General Board is accurate as of 19 September 2006!! Affiliated and related, in this context, mean the same thing! Pastorwayne 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
They claim that they're accurate but in fact they're not. I have e-mailed them to ask why Puget Sound remains on their page. --Liface 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that we are using two different definitions. Perhaps the General Board says, "We would like to recognize college X." Meanwhile many of these colleges have severed all legal and financial ties to the church and really have little to do with being on the receiving end of this designation:

"All United Methodist-related institutions are reviewed by the University Senate of The United Methodist Church. The Senate, an elected body of professionals in higher education created by the General Conference, determines which schools, colleges, universities, and theological schools meet the criteria for listing as institutions affiliated with The United Methodist Church."[5]

I'm not sure why the church sees a great advantage in compiling a list that includes relationships that are mainly historic and I'm not certian that the list is notable to the colleges themselves. How do others read this? Does anyone know what the actual criteria are? -MrFizyx 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I totally agree with MrFizyx. I can also understand Pastorwayne's position given his religiousity and I totally respect that. I just don't think that what he keeps inserting on all these schools' pages is all that important to them. I go to Ohio Wesleyan and the emphasis on political activism is the only way that its affiliation manifests itself. Otherwise, I totally agree with MrFizyx that both to the students, the administratos, but especially so to the faculty here at OWU that list of colleges is completely non-notable. Nobody talks about this affiliation at all (but the chaplain because that's his job) to be even paraded on the school's Wikipedia page. There are so many more important facets of the school before you even start thinking about this historic tie. And apparently this seems to be the case for Dickinson, [[Puget Sound, Duke, Northwestern, Emory and others. WikiprojectOWU 18:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this statement. Just because you may not be involved with the Methodist interactions of the school doesn't mean that they don't exist. As I was last aware, both the Eastern and the Western Bishops of the Ohio Conferences of the United Methodist Church had ex-officio seats on the Board of Trustees for OWU. Also, some trustees are elected based on their conference of the UMC in Ohio (see http://catalog.owu.edu/cat-j01.pdf). I'd say that's a pretty important legal tie between the church and the school. I side with Pastorwayneon this one - if this is to be included as a category of affiliation for schools, then the church's official list should be used much as you would for an athletic conference or the like...--134.243.210.23 01:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please cite sources that show that OWU is not affiliated with the methodist church, otherwise your impressions as a student are original research and thus fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. OWU on it's home page[1] declares, "OWU maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church."Balloonman 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's decide on some guidelines for inclusion. A college must have both legal and financial ties to the Methodist Church to be a methodist college. Sound good? --Liface 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems a lot of people share the same opinion with the exception of Pastorwayne. I do agree with Liface's last suggestion though I wonder how necessary it is to have two points. The affiliation of the five schools in question appears to be neither legal nor financial but just a superficial acknowledgement of an old historic affiliation.
    • The question isn't whether or not they have a legal and financial affiliation, but rather A) Does the school recognize the affiliation and B) does the Church recognize the affiliation. If both entities recognize the affiliation, then it does not matter the nature of said affiliation. OWU, as an institution, recognizes the affiliation. The UMC, as an institution, recognizes the affiliation. Wikipedia's failure to recognize an affiliation that both institutions in question recognize, is simply incorrect.Balloonman 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I should also note that for wikipedia to define the criteria that goes against the statements of the institutions involved would be Original Research. And opens the process to subjectivity. E.g. at most colleges/universities, the UMC's financial contribution is negligible. Does that mean that the affiliation wouldn't meet the stated criteria above?Balloonman 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methodist College organizations

I discovered two sources listing Methodist colleges and universities the frist is the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU) founded in 1991 which describes its members as Methodist-related schools, colleges, and universities and those with a Methodist tradition from throughout the world. the other is the directory of untied methodist related colleges, from The Untied Methodist Church in the US. Both are from the General Board of Higher Education websites:

From these sources this template seems pretty accurate, however it is missing several universities - thank you Astuishin 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the University of Puget Sound and Duke University are listed and the last elections for board of Directors are January 25, 2007 see here so this list seems pretty up to date, any objections to adding them back to the template? - thank you Astuishin 08:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I sense that most on this page are sensitive to the usage of the word affiliated so prehaps the template box can be revised to reflect the organization that the colleges are members of. Similar to the Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities, and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities Is this proposal objectionable? - thank you Astuishin 18:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. How would you retitle the template? -MrFizyx 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you chang "Universities and colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church" to "International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU)"? I don't see how this would be controversial. This doesn't leave the term "affiliated" up to the reader's own interpretation, and clearly you can source the list of IAMSCU schools. Good work on this Astuishin. -MrFizyx 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The sources you listed, while seemingly official, are untrustworthy. The University of Puget Sound is not a Methodist institution. "The era of President Phillip M. Phibbs (1973-1992) marked a turning point for the institution. In 1980, the Methodist Church divested its legal ties to the institution while maintaining historical ties. Over the next decade, the university moved to an independent board of trustees that assumed sole fiscal responsibility. " [6] From Princeton review, Religious affiliation = No affiliation [7]. I think you'll find the same for many other colleges on this list. --Liface 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
All of this does not contradict the indication that Puget Sound is a member of IAMSCU. Are you suggesting that this is untrue? Obviously you can clarify the relationship in the Puget Sound article. -MrFizyx 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The sources from the Princeton Review, and the the Puget Sound website are interesting, and quite relevant, however it is unclear to me how they are mutually exclusive from the ones in my early post. I feel it is possible to be Methodist related while still not having a sectarian affiliation. Both of the IAMSCU and the US Methodist college organizations seem to formally reorganize the historical roots of the institutions list. Liface, do you feel the institutions were included in these organizations unwillingly? or otherwise with little or no consent in the matter? I'm skeptical of that however if there is evidence it should be heard. I would be surprised if the United Methodist Church was doing anything untruthful. However I feel that Liface brings up a valid point, with his concerns on association with the Methodist Church. I second Mrfizyx in suggesting that perhaps the University of Puget Sound's article should mention its Methodist roots but state clearly that it is non-sectarian. Or their could be an accompanying article with this template, that makes clear that not all member institutions religiously related to the Methodist church but they do still have historical ties. Perhaps we can look at the two aforementioned collegiate religious organizations for guidance. Thoughts? - thank you Astuishin 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Mrfizyx, yes I think we should change the templage to read: the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities - thank you Astuishin 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that renaming to then include all the schools in their list. However, it makes it more meaningless, IMO, albeit more clear. I say this because I think only schools that have significant and current ties to the United Methodist Church should have a template. But if people agree on that renaming, then I'd be okay with adding schools to the template that are in the official list. -Bluedog423Talk 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Puget Sound students do continue to qualify for scholarships based on their affiliation the the UMC. UPS announces a 2003 recipient here, and a 2000 winner from UPS is announce here and other places. -MrFizyx 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on the schools historical affiliation, the church is allowed to give out a limited number of scholarships. There is also a Methodist students club on campus and a university chaplain, but many schools have university chaplains. If a school is affiliated, that means to me that the Methodists have legal and financial ties to the institution. --Liface 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If the other collegiate religious organizations are to be any guide, legal and financial ties to the denomination are not needed. The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities article states in the second sentence, Although each institution is legally autonomous under their own boards of trustees and separately chartered by their respective states, the 28 schools and two associate member institutions are bonded together by their common Jesuit ideals, and engage in a number of collaborative projects. That is simply one article's threshold for notability perhaps it is not enough. Also, I removed to the term "affiliated" from the box so I did hope the interpretation of that word will cease to be an issue. I feel that several parties still object to the placement of several colleges in the list. The International Association of Methodist-related Schools, seems to be a legitimate organization that is apart of the General board of higher education, a branch of the United Methodist. Its importance seems to be in question however, to me it seems to be a useful way to navigate through colleges with historical ties to Methodist church, as well as ones that continue to acknowledge it by electing to be members of this organization. Not all template boxes are contemporary, I actually can think of many that aren't. Therefore I feel the removed colleges should be place back in. Thoughts? - thank you Astuishin 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding template box back

I have done a number of things to make this template box more acceptable to all interested parties; I have restored the names of the several colleges back to the template box, under the title International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities , I will also start an accompanying article that explains the nature of this organization, and lastly I have shrunk the text of the box to make it less intrusive. Are there objections to placing it on all college pages? - thank you Astuishin 09:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections, some suggestions. We should also change the name of the category to reflect the template title. I'm not certian, but I think all of the schools can be moved to a new category just by editing the template. Also, the template title should link to a relevant article (or maybe the category for now, which can be given a short description and display references). I can help you with this later on if you have problems. -MrFizyx 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notability and meaning of the list

An article on either the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities or the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry within the UMC would go a long way to establishing that this this list were notable and clairifying what being on the list means for the schools included. It might also help explain the apparent contradiction of a school being "Methodist-related" despite having severed fiscal and leagal ties to the United Methodist Church. Any such article would require some reliable sources be found independent of the organization itself to meet the general criteria for notability. Finding such sources may not be easy. -MrFizyx 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is collegiate organization book that I access to, but cannot recall by name, that presents a small bio for the IAMUC, perhaps that could be used. - thank you Astuishin 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If it is question of credibility the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry is accountable to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church and at least one the websites is hosted by the GBHEM, the General Conference is the governing branch of the United Methodist Church, which with over 5 million members, is the largest branch of the Methodist Church. Does anyone feel the GBHEM is not certifiable? - thank you Astuishin 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point, obviously the United Methodist Church is notable. There was some debate a while back though as to if subjects on the list of Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations deserved their own article or not. I think this resulted in the deletion of several articles. All that I'm really saying is to proceed with some caution, make the meaning of the list explicit and source it as best as you can. -MrFizyx 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Puget Sound

Folks, University of Puget Sound is not affiliated with the Methodist Church. Anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong. Let's look at some definitions of affiliation, affiliate, affilated, and so forth. The act of affiliating; state of being affiliated or associated; To adopt or accept as a member, subordinate associate, or branch; To associate (oneself) as a subordinate, subsidiary, employee, or member. Puget Sound is NONE of those things. There is no affiliation or denomination of ANY kind with the Methodist Church. It has been suggested that I check the university's website. I have and I implore you to do so as well. It states that we broke away from the Methodist Church years ago. I go to UPS. I am sitting on campus at this very second. I can tell you explicitly and with authority that we are NOT a Methodist school. KDR 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Liface 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that "affiliated" is not correct. I do not, however, agree that personal or geographic proximity to the UPS campus gives one special "authority" on the matter. (Nor does typing in ALL CAPS enhance the veracity of a claim.) Please comment on the proposal directly below. -MrFizyx 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree. How can you say that and keep a straight face? Personal or geographic proximity to a subject does not give a person the ability to comment on that subject with greater authority? What is the color of my floor? I assume you know the color of my floor just as well as I do seeing as how someone's personal or geographic proximity to a subject does not increase that person's understanding or authority of the subject. I have been going to UPS for four years. My brother went to UPS the four years before that. I have a great deal of personal experience with this university and an understanding of its history. It allows me to speak about the university with an intimate knowledge the same way a mechanic could comment on the inner workings of an engine. Sorry, but personal experience and proximity do count for something and suggesting that they do not is absolutely ludicrous. And my capitalizing three words served only to add EMPHASIS. KDR 05:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to rename the "affiliated" category

Kroush does make one good point above. "Affiliated" is not a good word choice to describe all of these schools. (Although (s)he seems to be rather selective in choosing definitions above, Merriam Webster also suggests, affiliate = "to trace the origin of" as does The American Heritage Dictionary)

I see no problem with the new wording on the template itself (which thanks to Astuishin no longer uses the word "affiliated") nor with the article, International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (which emphasizes that the members are historically affiliated). The template does, however, dump articles into the category, Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church. We should change this to something like, Category:Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities. This would have better agreement with the article and source. One would also hope that this would be less offensive to users like Kroush who feel that this template applies inappropriate labels to some schools. "Methodist-related" very much applies to schools like Puget Sound who enjoy a long historical connection to Methodism. Although UPS is fiscally and legally independent, it does acknowledge, and celebrate it's history in a number of ways and maintains relationships that benefit both institutions. (I can outline a few examples of the current Church/University relationships if anyone is still ignorant of these--is that really needed?).

Technically, I think we are supposed to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, but in reality, we should be able to move all the articles simply by editing the template. Since this will affect many articles, we should try to build some consensus here first. -MrFizyx 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel like MrFizyx, that we can find a consensus. IMO Puget Sound has a historical affiliation to the Methodist chruch as it was founded by Methodist, however at Kroush's urging, I did check Puget Sound's website, after having checked it before at the suggestion of Liface, to see if I could find any new information that would potentially invalidate my opinion. The website however only chronicled how the Methodist founded the school. Now if the word affiliated is objectionable then I have no problem with being removed, however Puget Sound is a member of the IAMSCU check the website, of the Methodist church. If you doubt its credible, then talk to an administrator. However until evidence is presented that refutes Puget Sounds membership to this organization, it should be included. Thoughts? - thank you Astuishin 02:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts on that are that the IAMSCU website is completely unreliable. The entry for UPS specifically states that our "demonination" is Methodist. I'm sorry, we're not Methodist. Read this. We divested our ties to the Methodist Church. It's as simple as that. My major argument is that the IAMSCU website is flat out incorrect and should not be relied upon as a source of UPS's supposed Methodist affiliation. As for the definition of affiliation, give me a break. I used the top results from dictionary.com. KDR 05:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The category should definitely be renamed to something like Category:Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities in the meantime, although I tend to agree that that IAMSCU classification is pretty worthless. But this category name is supremely better than the current wording of "Methodist-affiliated." I still think there should be a clearer distinction between those schools with historic ties to the Methodist Church and those with clear, ongoing Methodist influences. But if we can't resolve that distinction, then at least the category should be renamed. -Bluedog423Talk 07:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been unable to define any other single source that nails down how the various schools are "related". It does seem though that ties are, in general, stronger than students think (I first came here to remove a school). -MrFizyx 07:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply to Kroush/KDR] The link you have provided has already been discussed on this page twice. It confirms UPS's Methodist historical affiliation. The removal of legal and fiscal ties in 1980 does not erase the historical relationship and it does not mean that other relationships have not continued. They have.
Again, for those who have not followed the entire discussion above, there are two source lists within the web site of the Global Board of Ministry of United Methodist Church that list U of Puget Sound (and the other schools) as "Methodist-related". One is the directory of the IAMSCU, the directory clearly notes "The relationship may be historic in the Methodist tradition or represent an active affiliation between the institution and a denomination." Obviously UPS is the former, not the later. The second list is titled, United Methodist-Related Schools, Colleges, Universities and Theological Schools, [note, "United Methodist" is more specific than "Methodist"]. There is some bit explaining how institutions are reviewed, etc. If you follow the link to Colleges & Universities you find a list that was last revised just a few days ago. At each step there are e-mail addresses and phone numbers to call for inquiries.
If you think either list contains errors, I suppose you should contact them. Neither source uses the word "affiliated". Therefore Wikipedia should not either.
Regarding Puget Sound: If you are concerned that there are no current Church-University relationships today, google: Methodist site:www.ups.edu for examples:
  • UPS library has special "Methodist Minister Privileges" and holds the archives for the Church's Pacific Northwest Conference
  • There are scholarships available only to UPS students/UMC members
  • UPS maintains Kilworth Chapel, which "commemorates the University's Methodist heritage"
  • As of Nov 2001, the UPS board of Trustees members included Bishop Elias G. Galvan of the Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church
These are all facts that we can verify with The University as the source. Do you really think all of this is trivial!?! -MrFizyx 07:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do find that "involvement" to be trivial. My point remains that IAMSCU's entry for Puget Sound is flat out wrong and therefore UPS should not be included in this list. And to refute some of your statements:
  • UPS Library has special "Organ Guild Privileges."
  • There are scholarhips available only to LGBT students, Business students, Humanities students, Asian studies students, community service-minded students, debate students, students who plan to enter public service, history students, etc.
  • Kilworth Chapel is about as non-denominational a building as one could find.
  • The UPS Board of Trustees includes people from corporations such as Zumiez, Investco, Delta Dental Plan of California, Weyerhaeuser, Verio, Smith Barney, Microsoft, Barclays, and Pepsi.
I acknowledge that UPS was founded as a Methodist school but it no longer is. It does not belong on this list. KDR 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"Involvement", "relationship"...care to pull out the dictionary again? Do you agree that "Methodist-related" is a step in the right direction from "affiliated"? You are entitled to your opinion of the list and who belongs on it. Forgive me if I hold in higher regard the selections made by the United Methodist Church, given that they have described criteria and a review process and in the case of Puget Sound, have regular representation on The Board. Also, your additional examples do not actually "refute" any of my statements. -MrFizyx 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think Methodist-related is correct either. You trust the IAMSCU website? Even when it is clearly wrong? "Denomination: Methodist." That is just completely incorrect. Also, it's funny, I was looking at a UPS Visitor's Pamphlet and it mentions the Chapel and uses almost the exact words you do. "...commemorates the university's Methodist heritage though the two are no longer related." And I believe my example shows that you are highlighting the small number of Methodist "ties" while completely ignoring the fact that by your standards, UPS could be noted as affiliated to any number of groups. The fact of the matter is, this directory is based on IAMSCU. They are wrong and should not be used as a source in this case. KDR 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Curiously, the on-line version of the chapel description does not end with the exact wording that you would like it to. I agree that "it's funny." Are you saying you prefer "affiliated"?
The IAMSCU list has not been shown to be wrong, but I think you misinterpret their meaning. When they list "Denomination: United Methodist", I think they are specifying which denomination of Methodism relates to UPS historically or otherwise. UPS was founded by the Methodist Episcopal church which through a merger became the United Methodist Church in the '60s. This distinguishes your school from one that that is related to say the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church or the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. -MrFizyx 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The wording that I would like it to? I am pointing out that in a visitor's pamphlet it has that wording. Would you like me to mail it to you? I'd be happy to do so. And from where in my statement would you surmise that I prefer "affiliated"? You've obviously gone round the bend. As for the use of "denomination"...shall we pull out the dictionary again? KDR 04:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* No, the problem is not that you don't understand a word. It is that you have quoted something out of context and cliamed that it is in error. Have you actually read this? Anyway, I think the point is moot and I would hope that the language that I have suggested below is something that you also can tolerate. -MrFizyx 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised proposal (due to template title problem)

When the template title was changed in February, from "Universities and colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church" to "International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities", we over-stepped the scope of the schools actually listed. The IAMSCU would also include other flavors of Methodism that are not "United Methodist", e.g. Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Wesleyan Church and Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the African Methodist Episcopal Church (which uses this template)

I now propose:

  1. That the template should have the innocuous title, "Universities and colleges related historically or currently to the United Methodist Church".
  2. That the category likewise be changed from Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church to Category:Universities and colleges related historically or currently to the United Methodist Church.

I realize:

  • It's cumbersome wording, but it approximates the convention in Category:Christian universities and colleges while not leaving much to interpretation.
  • It is too bad we have no source to distinguish historical and current affiliations. It may be that the UMC maintains a broad spectrum of relations with these schools and some don't fall neatly into either category.
  • The official source for the template would be this one, which could be cross-checked with schools tagged "United Methodist" in this one.


Is there any opposition to this language? -MrFizyx 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


I feel that it is fair- thank you Astuishin

Why not two separate templates? Category:Universities and colleges historically affiliated with the United Methodist Church and Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liface (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
As noted above, we have no source to reliably separate the two lists (historic & current). The United Methodist Church has a set of criteria and a review process for the list it maintains and it does not appear to distinguish between the two. If we do it ourselves it borders on original research and we would have a difficult time building consensus.. -MrFizyx 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The inclusion parameters seem good. The title is too cumbersome. "Related" is vague/inclusive enough to include "currently" as well as "historically." Can't we just use "related," and skip the other two words? Pastorwayne 11:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Personnally I agree with you, but it seems that a few editors even dislike "related". We could leave it open ended and let the larger community decide in a WP:CfD. -MrFizyx 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)