Talk:Pensacola Christian College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Alternative Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternative education and related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Homeschooling, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of homeschooling-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

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)

It seems that someone at 74.130.163.202 and someone by the name of blackbeltmonkey (possibly one and the same person) wants to delete a paragraph in accreditation. I am curious about their reason for doing so. If there is some problem they need to explain why they want this paragraph deleted, or maybe the paragraph could be edited. It may not be accurate. Without an explanation this looks like vandalism.Mortsey 06:06, 10 June 2007 (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)

In the quote from The Chonicle of Higher Education I added [Christian College] as refering to PCC as Pensacola is more of a colloquial term that students and alumni use to refer to the college. I felt refering to PCC simply as Pensacola is below the Wikipedia gramatical standars, and makes the quote less ambiguous where the quote might be confused with the greater Pensacola area and not limited to the college itself. Mortsey 11:17utc 19 April 2007

[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)


I am no longer actively monitoring this article, but I would suggest the following line from the Student Voice section be addressed:

"Claims by former alumni from the year in question also mention a ring of student and internet pornography that was intercepted as well."

While there is already a fact tag at the end of this statement, I'm not sure it really deserves to be lumped into the Student Voice section in the first place. Perhaps removing the sentence and changing the paragraph to read as follows would be better:

"It is possible that The Student Voice was not the sole reason for loss of internet access at PCC, as there is a range of internet activities prohibited by PCC that the college would likely desire to monitor and prevent. During the Summer of 2004, a new, heavily filtered, wireless internet became available to students on campus."

My only concern about this is that I'm not comfortable with the speculative nature of the statement, even if it seems a very likely explanation. If others agree it would not be appropriate, then I would feel fine with simply deleting the first sentence (which is not strictly pertinent to the Student Voice anyway) and leaving the remainder as is. Cheers --DavidGC 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. -Will Beback · † · 06:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Student Voice was formerly located under the section of the PCC page labeled Publications. I moved it up and place it under the "PCC response to anti-PCC activities by current students, former students and alumni" section because I felt that locating it along with A Beka Books may cause readers unfamiliar with the publication to confuse it as a publication of the College. I also felt that it fits better under the PCC response section because the Student Voice is in the eyes of PCC administration an anti-PCC website. Therefore it fits much better in the section describing PCC's response to such activity on the PCC page. If someone feels the need to defend the Student Voice as a student advocacy website, they should do so on the page dedicated to the Student Voice.Mortsey 00:00, 4 May 2007 (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 agree with the merge. See my comments at Talk:A Beka Books. Arbusto 03:16, 30 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)


In the edit I made, I removed the statement on 'optical intercourse' altogether; it appeared that the source had coined the term (rather than the students). Additionally, it could be considered spiteful on the part of the article author, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia verifiability statement. Hampshire2004 02:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Official wikipedia policy on verifiability states "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As the information in question was properly cited from a reliable source, it has been restored to the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay.. My apologies for accidentally writing over the reverted version that second time.--Hampshire2004 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. Any time you join a new community, it can take a little while to get used to the local policies and guidelines. Hope you enjoy your time here at wikipedia! --Kralizec! (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Schettler

According to this article, it looks like he's on his way out as pastor of the Campus Church. Any information on why he's being replaced? --WAVY 10 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw elsewhere that he said he felt God calling him to other areas of ministry. --208.27.125.249 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this applies to this topic directly but I was there when they announced the new pastor of the Campus Church and there was a general reaction of shock and verbal dismay not only from the students but from faculty and staff as well as general members of the congregation. It would be interesting to see if anyone other than the school's board of directors voted on who the new pastor would be as well as what made them make their decision. The school is extremely secretive about executive decisions and I find this very disturbing, it creates an atmosphere of uncertainty and rumors. To me this is an indication that the college believes that the truth would be more harmful to them then actually presenting the truth to the world. There is no responsibility to the students, who are actually paying to go to the college (a fact that the administration seems to often conveniently forget), and deserve by right to know what is going on. The future of the graduate depends on the reputation of this institution shouldn't the students then have a greater say in what goes on by the very fact that they are paying to go there? Pastor Schettler was a good man who always put the students first no matter what the College (board of directors) tried to twist his arm into doing. The new man who the board has appointed to be pastor is young and untested. May God have mercy on the poor souls of the incoming students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.10.102 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 January 2007

Rejoice in the Lord is still airing broadcasts with Jim Schettler. I cannot figure out why they are doing so, especially if it's been several months since he left.

Most likely they air archived broadcasts on many occasions, and it's just noticeable now that the main speaker has changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.92.46 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WAVY 10 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enrollment

Unfortunately, I'm reverting recent changes to the enrollment figures. While I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the changes made by Ps1830, they are not verifiable. The citation provided does not mesh with the current figures, and I can find no publication that states the figures. Therefore, I'll be changing the figures to reflect the data contained in the source currently cited. Until PCC publishes enrollment data again somewhere, or it is provided by another reliable source, we should probably leave the figure as-is. Cheers --DavidGC 06:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War of 1 March 2007

While I have not participated in the edit war that was going on as of 1 March, I agree with the current version of the article, which excludes the numerous edits made by an anonymous user. Although that user has not yet explained the edits here in Talk, I would like to address why some of them have been reverted by other editors.

1) The mention of PCC being unaccredited was removed.

The fact that PCC is unaccredited is worthy of note. It is part of what makes PCC distinctive, and therefore is worthy of inclusion.

2) The "making eye babies" phrase was removed.

This has been discussed in detail here in Talk before (currently in Archive). The source for this cited statement can be found here: http://www.brianbaute.com/archives/2006/03/pensacola-christian-college.php

3) Editor changed a statement from "A Beka Book is criticized for publishing misinformation" to "A Beka Book is criticized for publishing Bible-based information."

The criticism is not that the information is Bible-based, but that it is inaccurate. Editing the statement in this way represents the criticism as something it is not, resulting in a loss of accuracy.

4) Editor changed the statement "has criticized A Beka as selling works that contain false information regarding origins of life" to state that the criticism is that the information is Bible-based.

See #3 above. The critics contend that the information is false, and the original statement reflects their contention.

5) Several paragraphs were removed because there was no source cited.

The paragraphs were marked with fact tags. Fact tags exist for this purpose, and I do not think it is appropriate to delete paragraphs merely because they have a fact tag.

Other editors may have issues with other parts of the many edits that were made, but these represent the edits that were most objectionable to me. Regards --DavidGC 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student Voice fact citations

How long do we leave a fact tag on wikipedia before removing the fact. The porn ring assertion has had a fact tag since September. Isn't it about time to remove this "fact". Since nobody is able to give a reference for it, except perhaps a random student rumor? The two other "facts" are a lot more recent. My personal view is don't add a "fact" - especially a negative one - unless it can be referenced. Somewhere the line must be drawn, otherwise I can put up Arlin Horton is a Martian, put a fact tag beside it, and it can stay there forever. Mgroop 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lack of Accreditation and no Board of Regents

Just a factoid regarding accreditation. In the United States, I believe that their are four recognized bodies who accredit religious schools. All four bodies share this fundamental requirement to accredit a college: There must be an independent governing board who has ultimate authority over the school. Now, PCC is under the control of founder and president Dr. Arlin Horton, and operates under the principle that God revealed to Horton the need for the school, and that it operates under the authority of God. Putting a governing board above Horton would be violating the theological principles of the school. In other words, as long as the school stays true to their founding principle, it is impossible for them to be accredited, even if they wanted to be accredited. Fortunately, it doesn't appear like the school cares about accreditation. When your authority comes from God, why would you do anything that would appear to endorse an accrediting board. - O^O 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diploma Mill

Per the hyperlink, "Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines a diploma mill as 'An institution of higher education operating without supervision of a state or professional agency and granting diplomas which are either fraudulent or, because of the lack of proper standards, worthless.'" As both parts of Webster's definition apply (lack of supervision, worthless diploma), it is evident that PCC should be called by its proper name: a diploma mill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bynoceros (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This smacks of all kinds of WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues. Unless / until we can resolve these, I have reverted the article back to college from diploma mill. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They are unaccredited, but "diploma mill" implies that the diplomas are obtained without real effort and without standards on their quality. The effort is real, and the standards are PCC's own standards; while most secular and mainstream Christian places don't acknowledge these degrees, they are very much respected in fundamentalist Christian circles. It's possible to give students an unaccredited or even worthless degree without being properly definable as a "diploma mill".--24.209.92.46 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an old discussion. It's clear that PCC is not a diploma mill, and subsequent comments (below) support that. --Orlady (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please clear up...

I just noticed this a few minutes ago...

"In addition, Lloyd Streeter has accepted the position of co-Pastor. This position had been held previously by Dr. Jim Schettler who left in May 2006"

I thought Schettler was the head pastor (if there is such a thing at the Campus Church). WAVY 10 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim Schettler resigned from his position as head pastor in the middle of the '05-'06 school year, and has since taken a position as head Pastor of a church in Santa Maria California. Dr. Lloyd Streeter and Dr. Neal Jackson were installed as the replacements for Jim Schettler. Mortsey 13:42 19 April 2007(UTC)

[edit] Two dates don't match up.

In the portion addressing PCC's King James Version only stand it is stated "In 1996, Dell Johnson, then the dean of Pensacola Theological Seminary, gave two chapel messages advocating the exclusive use of the King James Bible and the Received Greek text"

Previously in the first paragragh it is stated that "Pensacola Theological Seminary and extention of PCC's graduate school was founded in 1998" When was PTS actualy founded? How could a then dean of a seminary make a statement as the dean of the seminary if the seminary did not exist for another two years? Mortsey 14:03, 19 April 2007(UTC)

From the PCC web site, the official date of the founding of PTS was 1998. Dr. Dell Johnson did indeed give two chapel messeges in 1996, but at the time he was the dean of the Bible Department of PCC. Perhaps instead of stating "then the dean of" the statement should read "who would later become" I have updated page to reflect this information more accuratly. Mortsey 1303, 20 April 2007(UTC)

[edit] usage of A Beka Books

The article discussing A Beka Books states that A Beka Book is a curriculum used by Fundamentalist Christian Schools. There are many non-fundamentalist Christian schools and families that use A Beka Books curriculum. This statement therefore seems to be a little biased toward painting A Beka Books as an instrument of extreemist indoctrination. Mortsey 04:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I used A Beka Books for 4 years. The first year's (4th grade) copies were great, all math and english, science, and spelling was great. the history book seemed like a view of american history from just a patriot who loves their country. The second and third year (5th and 6th) were much the same, but the history book showed slight, but very hidden bias. The fourth year (7th grade) was still moving forward in english and math, but science and history took a sudden turn. Science was no longer about birds and trees. It was 50 or more percent about challenging evolution. The paragraphs and chapters not about evolution's weakness often ended saying "How could (event) happen at random?" While I believe in creationism myself, I personally see this as too much for a 7th grade mind. The history book was biased tremendosly towards conservatives and Republicans. The book even criticized F.D. Roosevelt in his talks with Stalin. I find some of the other FDR blasting amusing, as the book are fundamental in their beliefs. Many of the teachers that were not so much into the whole "strictness" of it were confused by the total "damnation" of FDR, the longest serving US President, as an evolutionist and a man who did not want Communism dead and gone, more or less, a "supporter" of it, when the book itself mentions that Stalin showed himself to FDR as a peace-loving socialist. After a few confrontations with the administration of the school, which openly supported PCC, I left for public school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.207.31.205 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mortsey that the wording of that statement is wrong for this setting. While the books themselves may have a severe conservative slant, this does not mean that schools using the materials are fundamentalist. I spent most of my schooling in private schools across the country that used some of this cirriculum or was homeschooled using it on and off, and none of those schools or my family is over-the-top fundamentalist. I think it needs changed to something a little more general such as "used by Christian schools, many of which are considered to be fundamentalist." Issuing a blanket statement like the one that currently exists is clearly bias. AffirmationChick 04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy in Demerits section

The section called Demerits seems to be rather redundant with the preceding section. Also the section on Demerits seems to leave the topic at hand and go back to talk about violations of PCC's regulations and disciplinary action for these violations. The whole section needs to be cleaned up (in my opinion) to better reflect the topic being discussed or the Demerits section needs to be merged with the previous section. I will take a look at what needs to be changed, but if someone else wants to take a stab at it first, I will hold off. Mortsey 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Begining with the word "Violations" the section seems to go off topic.Mortsey 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Be BOLD! and have at it! While perhaps a bit light on citations, your edits on the article to date have been excellent. Keep up the great work! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was BOLD and performed a major overhaul of the section. Any review and comment that can improve upon the overhaul would be appreciated, or if my overhaul is found lacking, I will not be offended by the section being reverted to the previous version.I forgot to log in before performing the overhaul, but yes that was me. Mortsey 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation of PCC

I don't feel that the following line belongs on the PCC page: "It should be noted that some other Christian colleges are accredited, and there are at least three accreditation bodies recognized by the United States who accredit some religious colleges." This line does not speak specifically about PCC but is more of a general statement about accredited Christian colleges or about accrediting bodies. It might just be the wording however. Any one else have any thoughts or comments on this? Mortsey 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My recollection is that the text in question was added because PCC's lack of accreditation makes it very unusual. While other Christian colleges may not have accreditation from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, they often have some form of accreditation from one of the bodies who accredit religious colleges. PCC's lack of interest in having anyone accredit the college makes it quite notable. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a distinction that PCC sticks to proudly. My concern is not that the line states that most other schools are accredited or that there are options for accreditation if PCC were to choose to become accredited. I simply feel that the sentence is a little disconnected as a whole from the body of the section it is in. I am wondering if the sentence could be worded differently to bring it more in line with the discussion about PCC. I am hesitant to change it drastically because I do not know if I would be able to word it correctly to convey the information.Mortsey 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it up higher in the section and done a slight re-write. Is that better? [2]. -Will Beback · † · 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Much better, Thank you. Mortsey 11:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Church moved toward the end of the article

I took the liberty to move the Campus Church section toward the end of the article because I felt that like A Beka Books it is more of a ministry of PCC. Those seeking information about PCC should know about the campus church and that there has been some controversy surrounding it, but I felt that this section is less informational about the college and more informational about a ministry attached to or run by the college. Mortsey 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regimen section heading changed to Student life

I am changing the Regimen section heading to Student Life. My intent in doing so is to add more information about life on the campus of PCC. PCC isn't all regimen rules and regulations. It is true these things are a large part of student life, but there is much more to attending PCC. I intend to add to this section to provide a better picture of what life as a college student at PCC entails. Mortsey 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Church

I noticed that the heading "Campus Church" was changed to "Campus church." Although it would appear that the edit is correct for Wikipedia style, "Campus Church" is the correct way to write the name just as one would write out the name "First Baptist Church." This is the proper name for the Campus Church. It does not have any other name. Therefore it should be written out in title caps.Mortsey 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles of Faith

I added the to that Articles of Faith section by copying directly PCCs Articles of Faith directly from the PCC website. I placed the copied section in Block Quotes and listed the source in a end note. I understand that the content on PCC's web page is copywrited, I am not sure if this falls under fair use or not, but I felt that the section needed to be expanded to better reflect PCC's positions. If there is a problem, I guess I could go through and re-write each section. Any advise from editors on how to bring this into compliance if what I did was improper procedure will be appreciated.Mortsey 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Beka Books section and NPOV

Okay, first off, it seems as though last September's merge of the A Beka article was probably ill-advised, as it seems there's quite a lot to be written on the subject of the A Beka curriculum (for example, not only scientists, but historians and mathematicians have been highly critical of their textbooks, with substantial questions regarding historical revisionism, inappropriate ideological considerations even in math books, and a general complaint that many of the books are written well below their intended grade level).

Second, I've extensively revised that section due to an obvious pro-A Beka bias, deleting phrases like "true Science" and replacing "Biblical Creationist" with "Biblical literalist and young-earth creationist", as well as toning down the implications that the University of California and NCSE were wrong to reject A Beka curriculum -- our job is to report, not editorialize, and the implications that the U of C system and NCSE were discriminatory and that an extreme dominionist/literalist theology is properly representative of Christianity as a whole is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Haikupoet 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are sufficient sources to A Beka Books I'd support splitting it back out again. Due to its popularity and controversy the book division may become more notable than the College itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that splitting A Beka Books off of Pensacola Christian College would be a bad idea, however since A Beka Books is an integral part of what PCC considers their ministry, the topic should at least be mentioned in the article about PCC. That said, I want to take some exception to what Haikupoet has to say about A Beka Books.

First: Which scientist and historians have been highly critical of A Beka Books. I assume the answer would be scientists who take an evolutionist view of origins, and historians who tend to have a some what liberal or socialist perspectives on history. I can't speak on the subject of Mathematicians, I don't know enough on the subject. Since A Beka Books takes a Biblical Creationist stand point and a conservative historical viewpoint wouldn't it stand to reason that their books would represent these view points. As to the point that the books are written below their grade level, I would like to ask if you have reviewed A Beka Books text books for yourself. I believe some of their high school text books are considered advanced enough to also be used on the college level, and PCC does so in their freshmen level History, Biology and English classes.

Second: I have no problem with your statement about taking bias out of an article, I agree that Wikipedia's purpose is to report not editorialize, but in even this there must be balance. You claim that the bias in the article implied that UofC system and NCSE were wrong in criticizing PCC. But is this bias justification for making the case that UofC and NCSE were right in criticizing PCC. Perhaps both institutions should be allowed to hold to their viewpoints without without criticism due to thier institutional autonomy. If PCC wants to proclaim their position and publish text books for use in private schools that are willing to purchase these books what gives the UofC system and NCSE the right to be critical and make a judgements against PCC. Both institutions are their own entities which may take polar opposite stands on the above issues. Perhaps UofC and NCSE are in a far worse position because they are tax payer funded, and using tax money payed by institutions like PCC among others to criticize institutions like PCC. At least if PCC makes claims against institutions like UofC and NCSE they do so by using private funds. So in your statement that Wikipedia is for reporting not editorializing perhaps the statement about UofC system and NCSE should be taken out completely. Last time I checked there were no statements in the UofC article in Wikipedia about how PCC or other religious institutions criticize their philosophies. Don't you think this is a bit of a double standard? OK, so you disagree, I'm not going to change your edits, but perhaps Wikipedia should not be used to editorialize.Mortsey 01:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • First, please read the change log to see exactly what I wrote. As far as the NCSE and the U of C, it is the opinion of such institutions that Christian fundamentalist science is no science at all, since it is entirely dependent on interpretation of revelation rather than observable reality. If they have the right to decide their own curricula, they also have the right to decide what is appropriate preparatory material for those curricula, and since their curricula are largely that of mainstream scientific thought, science texts written according to fundamentalist Christian dogma do not, in their opinion, qualify. As for critical scientists and historians, I think it a safe bet that a) the vast majority of scientists around the world are supporters of evolutionary theory and b) just because a historian takes issue with a fundamentalist Christian view of history does not make that historian necessarily liberal, never mind socialist. And finally, I don't see how my changes qualify as editorializing -- the changes made there were as close to the facts as I could make them. Haikupoet 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Haikupoet, thank you for a well though out and well verbalized response, I can respect good writing. First: I did read your revision, and mostly took issue with the fact that you called statements that were positive in regard to the subject of the article editorializing, and yet somehow view retention of anti-A Beka Book statements by UofC and the NCSE not editorializing. A few months back the entire section was a big bash against A Beka Books because they were not up to snuff with the UofC and NCSE. Back when I revised the section I did not remove the UofC and NCSE statements because I felt they represented one side of the argument. I felt my revision which included a somewhat pro-A Beka Books view balanced out the UofC/NCSE statements, giving both sided equal voice. I did not see this as editorializing, just making a balanced section. That said, I do not take issue with the UofC finding A Beka Books materials unqualified for use as source materials in their curricula. a) They a very different philosophical standpoint when it comes to what subjects need to be taught and how to teach them, and b) I think that it would be far below their standards to us another set of high school curricula as source materials for their curricula. I would hope that they would use true source materials, which I believe they do. As for critical Scientists and Historians, consensus does not equal fact, it just equals scientists among a consensus, perhaps even a majority consensus. Unfortunately some scientist and historians among a consensus refuse to accept opposing view points but instead filter their viewpoints through a philosophical lens. This is a tragedy of our day which turns true learning and education in the fields of History and Science into propaganda tools for advancing a philosophical view point. So you don't think I am bashing on anyone, the same can be said about both sides. Perhaps I misspoke when I lumped all contemporary historians and scientists who oppose "Christian Fundamentalist Science" as you call it and who oppose History from a Christian perspective into the liberal or socialist box, but I would venture to say that a survey would probably show an overwhelming bent in liberal or even socialist direction. Finally (since that is how you rounded out our comment) I will concede to the point that you were not editorializing outright, as I am sure that this was not your intention due to your pointing out that you felt the previous edits to the sec ion were editorializing. I when I wrote what I wrote I did not feel that I was editorializing either. Perhaps we can strike a better balance by fully representing both sides. Mortsey 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words in Student Life Section

I edited the Student life section in the attempt to remove any weasel words. If someone wants to review my edits and decide if the edit brings the section up to Wikipedia standards, I would appreciate it. I will check back. Any comments on my talk page are appreciated.Mortsey 22:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules and Regulations

Here's a slight generalization I have a bit of a problem with

"Rules at PCC are similar to those of many other fundamentalist Christian colleges..."

I understand that like other christian colleges, PCC regulates dating, dress, etc. But are the rules similar or is PCC notably more strict? I would hate people to read this article and think that the rules are similar to other fundamentalist Christian Colleges, when I have repeatedly heard that PCC is significantly more strict than most others. http://www.pccboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=bd78b027a20dbe4bb2e7f9aa32261d18&threadid=27501 . Other people can weigh in on this, but I personally would argue that you should leave out a comparison of PCC's rules to other fundamentalist colleges unless there's any source comparing the rules. Hal2ii 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal2ii, I read your edit, and find that your wording which takes out the comparison of PCC to other Christian Fundamentalist colleges is probably a more accurate statement as it takes a subjective or opinionated aspect out of the section. Just a comment however on those who claim PCC to be more strict; pccboard.com and other websites such as pensacolachristiancollege.com are predominantly run and generaly frequented by disgruntaled PCC alumni, students or other visitors aquainted with PCC who for one reason or another do not like the school. Their opinions may be slanted in an anti-PCC direction. If PCC is compaired to Baptist Bible College in Clark Summit PA, yes, PCC is far more strict. However if PCC is compaired to Hyles-Anderson College PCC would be far less strict. Mortsey 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can only compare PCC to Patrick Henry and Liberty becaues those are the only other two "rulebooks" I have seen. I have no idea about Hyles-Anderson's rules, but I think that if you don't have a comparison to offer you're better of not making an assertion that one is more or less strict than the other.

I think the best way to resolve the situation would be to factually and nonjudgmentally list the rules of PCC (the "big ones" - summarizing but not judging) and let people decide if it is more or less strict than other schools. Recording specific rules is certainly not a bias against PCC. However, if the rules are written in a judgmental way or flat out wrong they should be corrected. This can help dispell rumors while still giving prospective students and visitors an idea of the rules. Hal2ii 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What ever the case, may be, stating that PCC is more strict or less strict than any other college may be a POV issue. Listing the rules outright my resolve the comparison but that would make for tedious reading, making the article clumsy and cumbersome. In a way I think this is already a problem in the demerits section. Also, from experience there are a lot, so if you want to type them all in, be my guest, not a job I would want to endeavor.Mortsey 21:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As an individual currently attending a fundamentalist school (PHC) I can assure you that PCC's rules are not indicative of the norm for Christian institutions. Quite the opposite, in fact. Within Christian circles, PCC is notable bevause it is so strict. I can think of very few schools that provide chaperons for dating or regulate off-campus employment. Even prohibiting rock music is out of the norm, these days. I think that it is fallacious to compare it to other fundamentalist schools. That particualr sentence has no value in the broader context of the section, anyways. Byjupiter (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement that rules are similar to other fundamentalist Christian colleges. It was unsourced, and amounts to original research. I substituted a statement that the rules are strict; that's also unsourced, but at least it's less contentious. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rules on Wikipedia

Are PCC students actually allowed to visit Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.13.130.37 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentalist!

I understand that PCC is a fundamentalist school. Why, however, does this need to be emphasized in every paragraph. Do mean this seems overly repetitious, unless one is trying to emphasize this point (usually with a negative connotation). Saying it once or twice normally does the trick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainviewkid (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)