Talk:Virginia University of Lynchburg

Who wrote this book?

I'm searching Google for the booklet: 'The Five and Ten Cent Church' but cannot find it listed anywhere. Can anyone tell me (1) who wrote it and (2) where a copy might be procured.

I know that an alum of our university authored it. My entire library was lost & it was one of my cherished reads.

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated !!

THANK YOU Dr. R. Lee Harvey Alumnus 1986 - 1993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.38.145 (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello - the book is:

Studied Reflections: The Five and Ten Cent Church (Flowing Upward - Laughter & Tears - Shadows of American Slavery) Paperback – January 1, 1979, by Ernest Clarence Smith. Nicolet1327 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring to add "non-profit" to lede sentence

An unregistered editor is edit-warring to the lede sentence of this article. He or she claims that "practically all college/university wiki pages they mention profit status" and that is definitely not true, at least for articles about U.S. colleges and universities. For those articles, we almost always include "for-profit" status if it's applicable otherwise we omit this information; I can only think of one exception (and I can't remember the specific article except that it's an online institution). We do this because the vast majority of colleges and universities in the U.S. are non-profit so this information simply isn't necessary in the lede. (More specifically, IPEDS data from April of this year - it's what I have handy - includes 6,857 Title IV-eligible colleges and universities in the U.S. Of those, 58% of them are either public or private non-profits. However, that includes the 1,887 institutions that are do not even award an associate degree i.e., barber schools, nail technician schools, driving schools. Most people don't consider those "colleges" so we should remove them from consideration. Once we do that, we see that 75% of 2-year and 4-year colleges are public or non-profit. From experience, I also know that many for-profit institutions are overrepresented in IPEDS as they often list each campus separately e.g., University of Phoenix lists 94 separate campuses in IPEDS. So the actual percentage of public and private non-profits is much higher than even 75%.)

So: Why is this editor insisting that unnecessary information that is omitted from virtually every article about a public or private non-profit college or university in the U.S. be included in this article? And why is he or she edit warring instead of beginning a discussion in Talk once another editor objected to his or her initial edit? ElKevbo (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no "edit war" taking place from my end, I accepted all the other edits ElKevbo made because the user had good reasons to cut them, but not this time. This one is a matter of relevance, importance, and accuracy, and that is the whole point of Wikipedia and should be defended vigorously to maintain that goal. This is a matter of me posting accurate, important relevant information and it being rejected as if it is not. My unregistered status is not relevant, nor should it be used to denigrate the accuracy of my edits, and since Wikipedia allows unregistered editing it does not invalidate such editing being used on an article.

Furthermore, in his/her last edit, ElKevbo made the claim that "practically all colleges in the U.S. are non-profit" as a way to delegitimize the need to add the school's non-profit status. However, there are roughly 3,200 for-profit institutions of higher education in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_higher_education_in_the_United_States#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20National%20Center,are%20subsidiaries%20of%20larger%20companies.

ElKevbo's other assertion stating it is untrue that "practically all college/university wiki pages they mention profit status" is also questionable. In under 30 seconds, I was able to produce the following (most from memory):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_the_People

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashworth_College

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grantham_University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Foster_College

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Management_and_Technology_(Virginia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Phoenix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Healthcare_Sciences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaheim_University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westcliff_University

Even HARVARD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University

And I could've easily given hundreds more examples, so the facts speak for themselves. I think if Harvard's page is mentioning its non-profit status that speaks volumes about the matter and why it is so relevant.

Whatever issue ElKevbo has with the way IPEDS lists its data is not up for debate here and ElKevbo would be better advised to take that matter up with IPEDS. This discussion is about VUL and the relevance of its profit status in a time where profit status is a major topic in higher education which anyone living in the last 20 years alone would be more than well aware of and would therefore fully understand why an inclusion of a schools profit status would make sense to be added.

Finally, to ElKevbo's attempt to disqualify schools based on his/her personal criteria or criteria based on a flawed argumentum ad populum position (of which there is no evidence of its popularity to begin with): Whether or not a college is 2 year, 4 year, Title IV-eligible or not Title IV-eligible, a Barber school, or a Clown college, or whether or not "people consider" or don't consider one school one thing or another, is completely irrelevant, unscientifc, and has nothing to do with the fact that profit status is relevant information, and that many schools DO have their profit status listed either on their wiki pages (as I have given a number of examples) or on their own websites which is extremely common in today's educational climate. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing that you have written addresses the points that I made: Because nearly all colleges and universities in the U.S. are non-profit, we omit that information from the lede of the article. None of the examples you listed above disprove that. ElKevbo (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Practically everything I wrote addressed directly points you have been attempting to make both from your edit responses and also within this talk page. Anyone reading my initial response can clearly see that, and it includes me even addressing (some but not all) parts you wrote that were extraneous/non-sequitur like, for instance, the semi-tangent you went on about your opinion of how IPEDS lists its data and your issues with it. The examples I provided show strong evidence that a number of schools do have their profit status listed, and on top of that all but one of those examples show it listed within the lede of the article. That 'one' is Harvard: theirs is listed on the right side grey column, yet it's still listed. But saying something wasn't done when it absolutely was is a pretty cool Jedi mind trick attempt. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the primary point: We don't typically include "non-profit" in the lede sentence of articles about U.S. colleges and universities. Examples of articles where we've included "for-profit" aren't relevant because that isn't what we're talking about. And one example where someone included this in the infobox is also irrelevant because we're not discussing the infobox (and that's clearly an outlier, too).

For the third time: Why should we make an exception from our regular practice for this specific article? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"For the third time". Aggressive. No need to be angry over pixels. Breathhhhhhhe ;-)

I have not ignored any point. "We don't typically" does not mean "We never". From the examples I gave, you can see at least one school that lists its profit status in the lede and it is not a for-profit school. There are others out there. If your sticking point is about it being in the lede, then maybe include it in the infobox? Where it's listed is not really at the center of what I'm debating. VUL is not a very well-known school at all so its important details are not well-known either. A detail like this would be helpful to many people especially given that the school itself does not even appear to list its profit status on its own website. Let's also keep in mind that nearly all nationally accredited schools are for-profit, yet this one is not: another reason to include this information to help people avoid confusion during examination or selection.

But, I mean, if a helpful 10-character fact being mentioned is such an afront to Wikipedia, then for goodness' sake, expel the demon and delete it. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the stats from IPEDS, or is clear that among comparable institutions (private 4 year institutions), the vast majority are non-profit (1300/1600, 81%).[1] "Private university" on its own implies non-profit status. This is the practice in the first sentence of almost all featured articles, a-class articles and good articles within the Higher Education Wikiproject (136 articles). Only one GA article mentions non-profit status (Western University of Health Sciences, a specialist medical university); notably one that does not is Patrick Henry College, which has the same accreditation as VUL. Mentioning the non-profit status in the first sentence is thus very uncommon but not entirely unheard of. There are two questions here: 1) Does including "non-profit" in the first sentence give WP:UNDUE weight to a relatively unimportant feature of the university; and 2) Does "non-profit" belong in a "concise definition" per MOS:FIRST. The first of these is debatable, but my view – informed by the statistics and backed by the vast majority of high-quality articles – is that it is not necessary for a concise definition as "private university" implies non-profit. I would certainly include "non-profit" in the infobox, but not in the first sentence. Robminchin (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the issue with setting a qualification like "among comparable institutions (private 4 year institutions)": We could set different criteria from the data and come up with ways to show an even greater balance in the non-profit direction or some other direction, but the fact that has to be done actually lends credence to my position. To allude to a point I made earlier, the type of school it is and the number of years of instruction it provides is a separate matter because Wikipedia pages are not being created based directly on those criteria, or at least that is not how the public generally accesses them. If a school is operating as a college/university/institute of higher education, it qualifies statistically in those databases, not simply because it is one type of school or another. Databases that hold this statistical information may sort the statistical data categorically, but that is a function and a functional concern for a statistical database, not for a Wiki article. You said that "private university" implies non-profit status, and to that I say the following: either "private" or "public" can be applied to non-profit businesses based on structure: https://www.upcounsel.com/are-non-profits-private-or-public

Also, "A for-profit corporation is usually an organization operating in the private sector..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation

To your first question "1) Does including "non-profit" in the first sentence give WP:UNDUE weight to a relatively unimportant feature of the university;" The assertion that it is "relatively unimportant" is oddly dismissive of a topic (profit status) that has been at the forefront of discussion, debate, and countless article subjects in the higher education sector for a number of years now. If it is "relatively unimportant", then the way it has been playing out in the everyday world would totally indicate otherwise. To your second question "2) Does "non-profit" belong in a "concise definition", I would ask that you consider my response to your first question when thinking about that 10-character fact. All of that being said, I am okay with it being in the infobox if you absolutely feel the need to do it that way. The important thing is that the information is shown somewhere on the page if for no other reason than the fact that it is a school not very well-known, with not very well-known details, profit status is essential information, and the school itself does not appear to list it on their site. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not an admissions brochure and we're not here to promote this or any other college or university. If it's "not very well-known" then that's something the university needs to address, not us. And if the university itself doesn't consider this important information then why should we? (We haven't considered this information important, either, in thousands of articles about other non-profit, private colleges and universities.) ElKevbo (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

(chuckles) :-) ... No, it is not an admissions brochure, yet like an admissions brochure there is a picture of the campus on the page when not all schools on Wiki have this, in fact I would wager that hundreds (maybe thousands) of schools here do not have that and most of them are far more well-known than VUL. The reality is, anything posted on the internet that directs attention to a person or business is promotion even if it is unintentional, especially on a site with the high level of popularity/visibility that Wikipedia has. You said "If it's "not very well-known" then that's something the university needs to address, not us." If that is the case, then why is this page here at all? If Wikipedia is only here to point to well-known things then there are an awful lot of page deletions that need to be made... 98.4.103.242 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your comments using colons so we know whose comments you're replying to. ElKevbo (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought the idea was to reply after the post you want to reply to in order to make that clear, but sure, I can do that. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's very helpful to suggest changing the infobox in this specific discussion focused on the lede sentence. If you think that this belongs in the infobox, I recommend opening another discussion at a minimum. A better approach would be to raise the question at WT:UNI or a similar Talk page as this would be a suggestion that would impact thousands of articles. ElKevbo (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of infoboxes, I notice Harvard's non-profit status is gone from its infobox. Hmmmmmmmmm. I wonder if that would have anything to do with the discussions here, and if now all like pages will get the same edit. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you pointed an inconsistency that was easy to address; I don't know of any other articles with infoboxes that are also inconsistent with our typical approach and content in these kinds of articles. The editing history of that article is fully accessible so it's difficult to accuse anyone of trying to hide something. ElKevbo (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Heh :-) Not accusing, just mentioning. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• It seems odd to argue that "non-profit" should be omitted because "early all colleges and universities in the U.S. are non-profit". That's taking a very US-centric view of things. As applied to universities "public" and "private" carries very different meanings in different countries, and it is helpful to readers outside the US to make this distinction. To take the UK as an example "There are five fully private universities in the United Kingdom: the non-profit University of Buckingham and Regent's University London, and the for-profit BPP University, University of Law and Arden University" [2], and both the University of Buckingham and Regent's University London are explicitly described as non-profit in the ledes of their articles. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful or particularly on-topic to introduce the UK's confusing ideas about "public" and "private" into this discussion. More importantly, if you'd like to propose a project-wide change then I strongly recommend doing that explicitly and in a more appropriate venue. ElKevbo (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If you really think that suggesting that Wikipedia articles should be useful to a WP:GLOBAL audience and not rely on assumed knowledge about the US-specific meanig of certains words is controversial then there's not much I can do to help you. I provide examples from the UK because I know these - and how these differ from the US where I have lived in the past - better than others, but the point is a global one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all and I'll appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. My point is that the UK has confusing and idiosyncratic definitions of "public" and "private" in this specific context so that specific example is not only off-topic in this discussion but also unhelpful in making your point. ElKevbo (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

We write for a global audience, and the UK definitions of "public" and "private" are no more idiosyncratic than the US definitions. In some countries most "private" universities are non-profit while in others the majority are for-profit, and in some a fairly even mixture is found. One cannot reasonably expect a non-US reader to know that a US private university is likely to be non-profit unless specifically labelled as for-profit, and we should not be relying on such implict knowledge when the simple alternative of making the status explicit is readily available. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that when a university is for-profit, it is a significant part of their identity and thus necessary fact to include in the lede. For most other universities (>80% from some data cited above), recognition of their non-profit status is an afterthought; nobody's really thinking about how whether Harvard is non-profit or not. I think it is WP:UNDUE inclusion in the lede. Also, at the same time, for really small noname universities (this one here), this might be a necessary fact to include in the text somewhere (under campus/organization?). GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 17:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You said "It is my understanding that when a university is for-profit, it is a significant part of their identity". How so?

You also said "For most other universities (>80% from some data cited above), recognition of their non-profit status is an afterthought". Are you using "Universities" to include all schools of higher education (those that identify as colleges, institutes, etc)? I ask because if we isolate it only to schools that identify as "Universities", we may be overlooking a lot of schools that qualify as institutions of higher education that are also for-profit. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo said, "there is no consensus in Talk to include this information so we return to status quo ant": Interesting conclusion, because of the 5 people in this conversation, 4 of them agreed the information either could or should be included somewhere on the page. The only one who disagreed was ElKevbo, the person who originally disagreed... However, it is still included in another way on the page, not one most will even notice if they are on mobile, but it is something. There is also one more way that people will see it, and I kept the discussion going just long enough for it to happen and most mobile users will see it. Now people will not have to wonder about that critical, relevant piece of information, they will see it and have a better idea of the choice they are making. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

By my count, only two of the five people in this discussion have clearly come down on your side of the discussion - and that includes you. If you still have objections, you're welcome to open an RfC to gather additional opinions or reopen the discussion later (I'd advise waiting at least six months). ElKevbo (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would be necessary for me to do much more for three reasons. First, right here in the talk my position to include the information was already supported by consensus:

1 - "I would certainly include "non-profit" in the infobox, but not in the first sentence. Robminchin (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)"

2 - "It seems odd to argue that "non-profit" should be omitted because "early all colleges and universities in the U.S. are non-profit", "both the University of Buckingham and Regent's University London are explicitly described as non-profit in the ledes of their articles. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)"

3 - "Also, at the same time, for really small noname universities (this one here), this might be a necessary fact to include in the text somewhere (under campus/organization?)." GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 17:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

4 - Myself.

That is 4 out of 5 people stating that the information could or should be included or that there is precedent elsewhere for it being included, none have said it should ::not be included somewhere on the page. To allude to an earlier point I made, where the information is placed is not the issue, just that the information should be there ::somewhere because it is essential and relevant especially given the school being discussed. Consensus (the criteria you established as the reasoning for your decision) is ::4 to 1 in my favor, the one being only you.

However, the second reason this isn't necessary is that the information can be found in two places now due to the amount of time it showed on Wikipedia, so everyone on ::mobile can now see it. It would be nice if it were displayed in a better spot on the wiki page itself as consensus would have it, but...

Third, since you did not go with consensus, it is pretty clear that the process is not at all democratic and you will never allow the change no matter how many more ::people support my position. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I specifically said that for non-profit schools this information doesn't belong in lede and should be added under other sections (e.g. Organization). Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy; we don't vote here. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 03:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Doctor of healthcare

Please add doctor of healthcare! It’s beyond me why you would edit it that out! 69.207.53.166 (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)