Talk:Oral Roberts University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comments about edits

Why do people not talk about the edits that they are doing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.143.139.36 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 19 April 2006.

It's a common malady. Some do, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A good edit summary can work just as well. However it is the people who do not use either which cause a lot of work for the rest of us. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetization or Cronological

someone should arrange the notables in some logical order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.143.139.36 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 26 April 2006.

[edit] Dress code

Someone should double-check the changes in dress code mentioned in the article, as some of the "newly permitted" items mentioned have in fact been allowed for some time. I attended from 1987 until 1991 and was able to wear jeans and tennis shoes throughout that time. I believe sandals (on men and women) were also permitted at this time. Now, if the insistence on button-down shirts and ties has been abolished, that is a big step and should be noted in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.140.171.5 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 April 2006.

  • I've made some edits in that regard. I don't know how to add links... there's an article on the dress code on the ORU web site at http://alumniweb.oru.edu/oru%20alumni/right74.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.241.1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 June 2006.
    • I went ahead and cited the part talking about the dresscode with the link you provided. Go here to see how to cite references.--NMajdan•talk 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history

the history sectioin seems a bit thin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.37.224.9 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 10 June 2006.

[edit] Accreditation

Is this "university" accredited by anyone respectable? If it isn't, then that should certainly be mentioned. If it is, then it probably should be as many people (myself included, I confess) have very low opinions of christian "education". If the institution really is academically worthy, then it deserves to have this recognised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrHydeous (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 October 2006.

I've added a reference to this information in the article. — jammycakes 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I was interested to note from the article on Word of Faith that some of the earliest criticisms of the movement itself came out of research work by faculty members at ORU, Charles Farah and Dan McConnell. I think that merits a mention in the controversy section. — jammycakes 13:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I took out a whole section someone had posted called "2007 Controversy," listing the unverified allegations of the Oct. 2 lawsuit. This is news, not a finding of fact. As the controversy unfolds, we will have a clearer idea about what we can and should put on this page. Ianspeir 13:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the information pieces in the Controversy section are finally "verified allegations", refrain from removing the controversy section under the banner of "vandalism". The material is well documented now and factual in all Wikipedia standards. Falkonry 23:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the widely publicized assertions are in themselves notable. Gwen Gale 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni/Kenneth Copeland

Would televangelist Kenneth Copeland be considered an alumnus?

WAVY 10 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.250.103 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Oral Roberts University alumni list

You have done a sloppy job editing the alumni section of ORU. There is many formatting inconsistencies and you left out a number of notable alumni: Katheryn Kuhlman, Ron Luce, Kenneth Copeland, and Jim Stovall. These are all notable religious figures which unfortunately Wikipedia does not have criteria for. Also, there is no written rule that someone must have a Wiki article in order to be considered notable. Jim Stoval does not have an article yet he has won an Emmy which classifies him as notable. Finally, the column marked "relationship to university" is redundant and not needed as the section is labeled "Alumni" which is a well enough defined word, Plus this section has little information in it. I actually consider your entire edit vandalism as it does only removes information that the community (aside from you) has found useful. Granted this article can use better documentation, however the reformatting and truncation of the alumni section was warrantless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.250.103 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, if you are going make personal attacks it will not help your situation.
Secondly, to be included on a list the names 1) must have articles (which means they meet WP:BIO). That is, start an article about them before adding the name AS THE TAG SAYS. If the article is not notable it will be deleted and removed from the list. 2) Honorary degrees are not alumni. That is why Kathryn Kuhlman is not on a list with those who completed course work. If you don't understand what an Alumnus is, please research it.
As you admit it needs sources. The all the names without sources are subject to removal.
Thirdly, you appear to be a WP:SPA. Thus, becareful when making claims about my edits.
You have been warned and this was been explained. If you still don't understand view List of Harvard University people, which has one of the best alumni lists on wikipedia. Until then do not make changes without addressing these issues. Arbustoo 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There were no personal attacks listed in my criticism of your editing, When I claimed you did a sloppy job that is an evaluation of your editing, not of you, as stated and can be clearly seen there are inconsistencies in the way you have formated the wording and the capitalization. As the list currently stands it is an Alumni list, not a ORU person list, It is a rather short list as it stands because ORU is indeed a small and relatively insignificant institution comapaired to Harvard. The Harvard list is munch larger and so it is right for that list to have only the briefest descriptions. That said if Harvard is the model you have not formated the list correctly either because the list here is still labeled "ORU alumni" and it is a part of the main article rather than being a self contained list. Also wikipedia is a community that thrives on debate and criticism, anyone is permitted to criticize anyone else's edits, your use of warnings has been barely tolerated by the community. It is very obvious that you care very much about wikipedia and I applaud your dedication, but please don't take criticism of your edits as a personal attack. As a solution to this debate I propose that we create an article entitled "ORU People" that contains your list and that we remove the alumni section from this page and replace it with a link to your list. Also that we fix your grammatical formating inconsistencies. Further you did several major edits with your reformatting and did not adequately explain each one. What in the list needs more documentation? While Kathyrn is not a alumni by your standard she is an ORU person. What about Ron Luce and Kenneth Copeland need more documentation? And you have yet to give an answer that is backed by the wikipedia rules why Jim Stoval should not be included. We can very easily create a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.250.103 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
When you set up a section with the title of an editor, you are dealing with the person not the subject. That is an attack.
You misunderstand my point about the Harvard list; its not the size that matters, but is how the list is formatted. It is three criteria: 1) Name 2) a brief description of their notoriety (say they are an director, not what they directed or their awards), and 3) How they are an alumni (degree, year completed).
It should be noted I simply created the chart and formatted the section, I did not add the names or descriptions. Feel free to add Luce and Copeland to the list and fix any other errors.
Lastly, Jim Stoval, as I addressed above, should have an article before being put on the list. That is why the list says "A good rule of thumb is to check whether the person has an article on Wikipedia. If not, consider starting an article on the subject before adding him/her to this list." Feel free to create a wikipedia account and start an article about him then add him to a list. Its takes seconds to sign up for wikipedia and its free.
The reason is basic. If we don't do this people start adding names they think are notable to inflate an alumni list. I encounter this a lot on wikipedia. For example, see this. People, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination) constantly try to inflate the list to the point where genuinely notable people are mixed with those who are not.
I know that is not your intent, but if other editors see that only people with articles are included they will be less likely inclined to add unnotable people. Thanks for your understanding, Arbustoo 23:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Controversy2

Here is a link to an article regarding a controversy at Oral Roberts University involving the Roberts family: [1] --24.8.159.95 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Added more material under controversy since this area is getting more noticed and more information is coming out everyday. Falkonry 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
...Edit rm'd following WP:BLP... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
We are glad you like the article. While you are writing a check to ORU, you may also wish to consider donating to help keep Wikipedia running! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs serious work

This article is very poor. There are two sections about Roberts' resignation. Then the history section has a tiny subsection, which is completely unneeded and should be merged with the overall history. The section on the buildings is just one overly long, poorly formatted paragraph. C56C 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with you, other than to say articles containing breaking news tend to get a bit lopsided until things settle down. I think input from other editors would be helpful. Gwen Gale 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible update

An up to date article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080116_1__OralR82558 has some new facts that should be included. Rochelle CMN (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Pre-professional programs"

The following text was added to the history section:

ORU has a pre-medicine program which currently has a 100% placement rate into medical schools. ORU also has pre-law, pre-health professions and other such pre-professional programs.

First, the 100% placement rate is unlikely for any school but either way, it should be supported with a reliable citation (not from ORU) before inclusion in the article. Second, most colleges and universities offer pre-professional tracks through their available majors and minors so I'm not sure how notable this is. Comments? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News 26 April 2008

Still woes. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)