Talk:Eston College

Lack of Third Party sourcing

The article is currently entirely sourced to:

• Eston College's website
• A book published by the college (as FGBI Press)
• The Association for Biblical Higher Education, to which the college is affiliated.
• A book published by the Apostolic Church of Pentecost, for which this college is "the primary training center"
• Our Apostolic Heritage, which is the official history of the ACOP.

WP:V states "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement of faith

Given that (i) the majority of this article is cited to Eston College's own website & (ii) that all the rest is cited to sources closely affiliated to he college, is it really appropriate to quote the college's entire Statement of faith verbatim? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that (1) Faith is central to the mission of this college and (2) it would be next to impossible to decide which parts of the creed to remove and (3) there is no violation of policy here and (4) IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work, yes, it is really appropriate. Kenatipo ^speak! 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn's position. Let's show substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the college that care about the statement of faith if we want to keep it. bW 01:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) Actually Kenatipo, 'Statements of faith' are about dogma not faith -- and as such, giving their full details would be considered {{over detailed}}: "an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience". (ii) Many (most?) religious organisations have such statements, or similar, but we generally don't see them quoted verbatim in articles -- even those that do not already suffer from a surfeit of self-description-based material. (iii) Your claim that "there is no violation of policy here" is WP:Complete bollocks -- the material in question violated WP:PSTS (predominate use of primary material), WP:V#Notability (complete lack of third-party material) and WP:IINFO ("excessive amount of intricate detail") and WP:QUOTEFARM ( you can hardly claim to be unaware of the latter as you disruptively removed the tag for it!). (iv) Your claim of "IDONTLIKEIT" is both completely unsubstantiated and completely in violation of WP:AGF. (iv) Your "yes, it is really appropriate" is nothing more than a worthless argument by assertion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

try copyvio. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, WP:COPYVIO would apply, as would WP:NFC#Text: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

1) "considered overly detailed" by whom? 2) so what? 3) QUOTEFARM, the reason given for removal, doesn't apply because the Statement is one quote, not a collection of quotes 4) since the reason for removal was bogus, I assume IDONTLIKEIT is in play 4)(again!) follows naturally from the other arguments. Kenatipo ^speak! 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) "considered overly detailed" by any reasonable editor, as (a) I rather doubt if many articles on seminaries would consider details on doctrinal views of baptism to be particularly relevant to a general audience, (b) I rather doubt if a general audience would understand why "Divine Healing as practiced throughout the New Testament" is an important article of faith, let alone be interested, etc, etc. (ii) The point was excessive quotation -- whether WP:QUOTEFARM or WP:COPYVIO is the most relevant policy. (iv) You can take your IWANTTOASSUMEBADFAITHREGARDLESSOFFACTSANDPOLICY and stick it where the sun don't shine! It has been your argumentation here that has been "bogus", tendentious, and utterly without foundation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please relax, Hrafn. I'm not edit-warring with you, just arguing. Was is Proust who said "Only the exhaustive is truly interesting"? You're more of a deletionist than I am. A lot of what we're discussing here is subjective and there's leeway involved, especially when you cite an Essay as opposed to a Policy or a Guideline. Kenatipo ^speak! 15:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, a tiny hint: DON'T repeatedly accuse people repeatedly of IDONTLIKEIT and then turn around and act surprised when they blow up at you for it. And given Proust's reputation for being, shall we say, somewhat longwinded, I'm hardly likely to accept his opinion on the relationship between the exhaustive and the interesting. The whole point of having policy is (i) to mediate subjective opinions & (ii) to avoid lawsuits (such as those for copyright violation). Now if you've got something that actually has some basis in policy to add, then I'm interested to hear it. If you want to continue to preach at me and/or insult me, then I've really got better things to do with my time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of us should find better things to do with our time. Let's agree that editing is much more fun when you have an article all to yourself and you can put in or take out whatever you want without some clown pointing out to you that your agenda is showing! Kenatipo ^speak! 04:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, wouldn't that be fun if we'd just let you put your junk wherever it pleases you; as for the "clown"-label, read WP:NPA. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Shorter Kenatipo: "I really don't have anything to say but to preach at, and insult, Hrafn." Shorter Hrafn: <yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn> <zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz> Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)