Talk:Florida College

NPOV?

Jeff, the language "non-institutional fellowship of churches of Christ," is an example of POV language, reflecting a POV that I (an FC alumnus), for example, do not share. The notion of a "fellowship of churches," and moreover, of such a fellowship defined by one particular doctrine, is sectarian and therefore contrary to the very ideals that many of us do share. That there are sectarian minded folks in many churches is true no doubt. And that many who may attend FC might have such a mindset might or might not be true. Perhaps it is your POV. But generally so characterizing FC's staff, faculty and most of its student body as belonging to a "fellowship of churches" defined in such terms is to impose on them someone else's POV. The line needs to be deleted.

Let me clarify, the issue is not whether most are opposed to "institutionalism" (I am); the issue is this language, "fellowship of churches." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.9.106 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 June 2006.

Okay, I think I understand now. However, there's no denying that FC pulls its staff, faculty, and vast majority of its students from members of non-institutional churches. Perhaps would be better to just state it that way, without the "fellowship of churches" stuff? I believe that language was originally borrowed from the pre-rewrite non-instutional churches page.

(BTW, if you use four tildes (~~~~) to mark your comments here, it's easier to tell who wrote what.)

As for the Billy Graham trivia, it's actually mentioned in the orientation sessions at FC (or was back when I went there), as is the Al Capone mention. it could probably be better phrased, though. The degree program stuff probably should go back up top, though, now that I think about it. Jdb1972 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my points. Let me press one a bit more. Why any such description such as "non-institutional" at all? Should the article also note that most students come from churches that use multiple cups? that have divided bible classes? that meet in dedicated buildings? etc. etc. The one thing that might be by design (by the college administration's design) characteristic of most students is that they are professing Christians, baptized believers. And of course even that is not true of all students. Maybe it could be said that the aim of the founders was to provide a place where parents who are baptized believers might want to send their children. If someone wants to say that, so be it, though it seems to me such gets rather cumbersome for a Wikipedia article. But to offer descriptions such as "non-institutional," even if more or less accurate, really serves no purpose other than to try to say something about the current differences among certain churches, and that shouldn't be the purpose of an article about Florida College. The mention of the fact that the College doesn't accept contributions from churches is sufficient to indicate a significant difference between this school and say, David Lipscomb.69.243.9.106 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In view of the foregoing discussion, I'm going to reinstate the changes I previously made. I will leave the Billy Graham trivia, although it doesn't seem to me that mention of this trivia in a freshman orientation session years ago qualifies it as sufficiently significant to be included in this artile. However, I am deleting the phrase "a church of Christ-affiliated school" inasmuch as this directly contradicts the statement at the beginning of the article that the college is not affiliated with churches. 69.243.9.106 03:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Appears to be taken word-for-word from http://www.flcoll.edu/about-fc/history.html

See How to write a great Wiki article.

-Ichabod 02:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revert?

This is just the official, PR version from the school's official material. The idea was/is to have an encyclopedic article about the college and not just parrot what is available from its own internal materials. The article is entitled "Florida College", not "History of Florida College". Who the past presidents are, for example, may be of great moment in the school's own official materials but is of very little interest to the general reading public. If this sort of "article" is what Wikipedia is to be about, it could just as well be a directory of web links. I'm not saying that there is no place in the article for some "official" material, but this is just a parroting of what one could get from clicking on the link. I suggest either reverting to the previous version or giving this editor a very short time to improve upon this "article" Rlquall 03:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV Vandalism

Hey guys! Looks like I've screwed up several times in the last few days. I got myself blocked by accidentally re-reverting a vandals stuff on Eagle and then I get unblocked and come here and it appears I did the same thing here. My apologies. I didn't catch the IP but someone came on Saturday night and messed with Florida College and Church of Christ both. I thought I was reverting the POV back to before, but it looks like I screwed up. Again, my apologies...I'm a wikinoob. --R.A. Ogden 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nature of the Institution known as Florida College

I was told, after much frustration in simply trying to provide a simple edit to the article on Florida College, that I need to "talk" here about whether it is worthwhile and why something other than a citation to the court case, links to court documents, and even a link to my own article about the matter fail to satisfy Wiki editors.

Florida College took "Christian" out of its names many years ago. I think it was because it was properly considered to be a noun and not an adjective. That the article identifies it with people considered "non-institutional" tells people something about the "institution" of Florida College. I don't have time to go through a 100 years of history about that.

In 2021, after 5 years of litigation with a formerly tenured faculty member who taught physical education courses and was director of intramural sports, decided it needed a new defense and decided to "change its stripes". Florida College (FC) filed a motion to claim, after 70 years or so of claiming otherwise, that it was a "religious institution" and its former professor was a "minister". Therefore, FC claimed the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The former professor was not up to starting over in the litigation and chose to dismiss the case. The milestone, however, had been reached. FC, effectively, joined with other schools it had historically denied being like (Abilene, Pepperdine, Lubbock, Harding, et al) and announced, effectively, it was now like the "nations round about", a "religious institution" with "ministers" as its employees, exempt from government involvement in disputes such as was carried on before 2021.

My latest edit just gave the simple facts of the matter as shown below:

"In 2021, Florida College, after 5 years of litigation with a former employee, filed a motion to change its position and offer the affirmative defense that it was a 'religious institution' and the former employee had been a 'minister' and that such circumstances prohibited the Court from having jurisdiction to decide the disputed matter. The former employee at that time voluntarily dismissed the case and the Court never ruled on the merits of the new claim being proposed by Florida College."

That was, I think, my 4th effort after cryptic complaints, variously, about the previous narrative, citation of the court case, links to court documents and even a reference to my own February 19, 2024 article on these historic developments regarding the nature of Florida College and the claims people might make for its nature.

If anyone knows how to frame the edit in such a way that Wiki editors will be happy, let me know. RLBaty (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

As noted, at the very least, inclusion of this needs to be based on reliable sources that confirm its notability for mentioning. What you've been attempting to insert so far has been your original research. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim,

I guess we don't speak the same language or share certain opinions about such things. "Reliable sources that confirm its notability for mentioning" also seems rather subjective and in trying to simply provide a historical note to the article I am not inclined to want to fuss over such matters of opinion.

Also, I clicked on your "notability" and only got so far as to see it appeared unrelated to our problem here; having something to do with whether or not a stand-alone article was indicated. I am only suggesting an edit.

Also, I notice the Florida College introduction includes:

"The college is an autonomous educational entity not beholden

to any corporate religious body; it accepts no monetary

contributions from any congregation or organized religious

bodies and its board members serve as individuals rather than

as official representatives of any such entity."

For those with ears to hear, that provides a foundation for finding that my edit is quite "notable" in the Florida College article.

It doesn't make sense to me, in this context, to insist on a "reliable source" and when one is provided turn it down as being "original research". It was simply a citation to the court case mentioned in the edit!!!!

I also clicked on your "reliable sources" reference and got as far as it saying that if there was no reliable sources then no Wikipedia "ARTICLE" was indicated. I am not proposing an "article"; just an edit.

I didn't figure you would care much for my website, and so for the first rounds I didn't reference it. Sure enough, when I finally tried that reference, you didn't like it.

The links I provided were to screenshots of court documents.

Those weren't good enough.

I don't want you to post an article; just a 3-4 line edit, which is notable and reasonably confirmed by the references I gave, indicating a "sea change" in how Florida College officials represent the nature of the institution, contrary to what your article states in its opening narrative. RLBaty (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right that notability is not applicable. This part of our "NPOV" policy is more applicable. In brief, we need some assurance that information has some importance before we can decide to include it in an encyclopedia article - it's not sufficient that the information is included in a reliable source. We generally make that decision by seeing if the information has been included in especially noteworthy sources or multiple sources that are independent of one another. In this instance, you've shown that this information is included in a primary source (which raises questions of interpretation) and one relatively unknown source. Has this information been discussed in other sources e.g., local newspapers, higher education publications, religious publications, legal publications? ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, I typed too quickly and meant "noteworthy" not "notability". We need independent coverage suggesting this is important at all. Plus the WP:OR/WP:NPOV issues. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I figure if I were dealing with 100 Wikipedia editors, you 2 might be the only ones to give me a hard time over a simple edit to note a significant historical development regarding Florida College. When is the last time you paid close attention to what you (Wikipedia) have already allowed in your Florida College article contrary to your criticism of my simple edit request?

In my last proposal, I tried to eliminate anything that might draw your ire as being "point of view" (POV) rather than simply stating the facts of the matter.

Did you notice where your Florida College article states, in part:

"Florida College was unique during these debates..."

For those with reasonable skills of comprehension, they can easily figure out and recognize some of what made Florida College "unique" and how the simple facts of that case in 2021 changed the "uniqueness" in an effort to try and avoid losing a lawsuit.

I could spend all day, perhaps, expressing POVs about that and why there may or may not be public discussions of the matter scattered around the Internet and Social Media.

I think you are being hypocritical in refusing to simply provide the edit, the facts of that historical court case affecting the very nature of Florida College and the claims that might be made for it.

Without a footnote, your introduction claims, in part:

"The college is an autonomous educational entity

not beholden to any corporate religious body..."

In the court case I gave, with links to the documentation, Florida College claimed to be a "religious institution", as opposed to an "autonomous educational entity not beholden to any corporate religious body".

If you can't update/edit your article to bring it more up-to-date with claims Florida College makes, has made, for itself, maybe you should just delete your article altogether.

How about a compromise here, to settle our little disagreement. Just change your introduction, or add to it, something like,

"The college has considered itself a religious institution

beyond the jurisdiction of the civil government regarding

employment disputes with employees which it considers to be

its ministers".

. RLBaty (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to circumvent matters that are close to the core of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yes, you can find examples of where it is not matching that, but Wikipedia is not finished. This (the talk page of a single article) is not the place where you are going to have a lot of impact on the basics of how Wikipedia works. I understand that may mean that Wikipedia is not what you think it is; new editors often find that. We have policies and guidelnes that are relevant to what you are trying to do, such as WP:PRIMARY dealing with sources like court transcripts, WP:SPS regarding self-published sources, WP:DUE for taking our cue from what reliable third-party sources consider worth saying on a matter, and so forth. (We even have some simple guidelines on editors using as reference material that they had published elsewhere at WP:SELFCITE.) In this case, you are using a arguement made in a court dispute as reflecting their general stance, while things said in a case are often solely intended to apply to the case and not reflect larger practice.

Wikipedia does not aim to take the lead in information to distribute; it is meant to follow others. If you wish to see the information here, you'd be moving toward that goal by finding a way to get it published in a reliable third-party source such as a newspaper (but not as a letter-to-the-editor or op-ed.)

Thank you for caring so much. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, and don't really need more editors to deal with.

Are you the night crew?

I am not out to "circumvent how Wikipedia is supposed to work", but simply be allowed an edit consistent with how it does actually work everyday.

Like so many other similar "affairs of men", there are plenty of rules and practices regarding how Wikipedia is allowed to work that, if there was the interest in posting the relevant facts of my proposed edit, it would be done. Similarly, as has been the case, if, for whatever reason, there is a desire to keep it from being posted, there are certainly "rules" that can be used to bludgeon my efforts to death and keep it from being posted where it belongs; in the Florida College article.

I guess that's a POV.

I'm not interested in arguing the point; just pointing it out.

The facts of my edit are undisputed and referenced and worthy of note in the Florida College article.

Wikipedia has no good reason for not noting them in its article.

I guess that's a POV as well.

You are welcome to it. RLBaty (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Payne quotation placement

Another editor and I are in disagreement about where to place a quotation by FC's former president Payne. Payne's words say that the school operates as an extension of the home rather than the church (underlining its independence from any church organization).

As of this writing, the quotation is in the History section, where I moved it from the lead. My reason behind this move was that longer quotes aren't typically included in lead sections, which are to be a summary of the article content.

I'm okay with a short paraphrase of the quotation being added back into the lead, perhaps introduced with something like, "Former president Buddy Payne has said that the school...". What do others think?

—ADavidB 05:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

With today's addition of a 1960s quotation of another college president on the school's purpose, any thoughts about adding the following to the lead's second paragraph?:

Multiple college presidents have written of the school's purpose and function as promoting a life of Christianity based on biblical principles, without doing so via a church connection.

—ADavidB 03:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend against that addition in the lead of this article.

My alternative would be to move "The college operates independently from any church organization" from the second lead paragraph to a stand alone 3rd lead paragraph.

The history of the churches of Christ and schools operated by its members, non-institutional and otherwise, testifies to the historical consensus that the private schools like Florida College, Oklahoma Christian University, Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine, et al, are NOT agencies of the church. The quotes from Florida College's history simply document that for purposes of this Wikipedia article without going into a lengthy theological and historical discussion of The College Question. RLBaty (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As the person who initially placed president Payne's quote in the summary section, I now see your wisdom of keeping it and the quote from another president (Cope) in the History section. I did though increase the length of quote in the summary section about the school's emphatic independence from any church via its original charter. TT33617FC (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)