Davesig

Removed Gastrich Sock Template

As I wrote in my edit summary, it would be completely out of character for Jason Gastrich to be receptive to the advice of an atheist, let alone listen to it, state that the commentary helps him, and then actually implement the advice given. My apologies for being so quick to mistake you for him. Keep up the good work. Remember: WP:NPOV and WP:COOL. Remember, if you can keep a cool head, when all about you are losing theirs, you probably have better drugs. Yes, just kidding. - Nascentatheist 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Nascent. I have not met Jason Gastrich nor had I heard of him until a few days ago. Having now read the archived discussions on this article it appears he has attempted to force-feed his views into the article. I wll try to follow the rules of engagement while adding what I believe to be relevant, value-added facts.

Davesig

• At the risk of being pedantic, don't add value. Let the value be the information itself. All we're supposed to do here is add information that happens to have value. As for the rest, if you've looked at those archives, you know why there was an issue with Jason and why there appear to be quite a few people watching an article that is really about a subject that is, in the great scheme of things, pretty unimportant. Welcome to Wikipedia. - Nascentatheist 03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest discussion

Nascentathiest, you are helping me understand your views and also the Wiki process. I admit I am not unbiased regarding LBU. The many academic chat communities that I have been monitoring over the last two years (while considering my own ministry degree options) which discuss acceptability of non-traditional programs/schools recognize and discuss how LBU was formerly considered far less "legitimate" than they are today. However, the wiki article, as it is today, does NOT support the NPOV rule. It includes a prepondernece of older facts, but does NOT include more current, and more positive factes that would provide the balance and neutrality the rule requires, as I understand it. - Davesig

• Again, the fact that some of the facts are "older" does not violate WP:NPOV, unless you can show that the old facts are kept in and the new facts kept out. It DOES support the NPOV rule, but remember that articles are, in essence, living on Wikipedia. Anyone can come along and add information to an article. If you have good information to add, do so. Make sure it's sourced. That's the only real requirement. - Nascentatheist 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of missing facts: - Davesig

• If facts are missing, it's because they are unknown, unevidenced, or unsourced. Feel free to add all pertinent information that can be verified through reliable sources independent of the subject, that is, LBU. If you can't do that, it doesn't qualify. See WP:V for guidance. - Nascentatheist 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LBU voluntarily has a semi-annual external academic evaluatuion performed by highly regarded academicians. - Davesig

• If that's true, then you can add that fact. However, you must source it. Orlady was within her rights to remove it because you made the claim and didn't source it. I'm still waiting on sources for your other claims (i.e., that Oregon has somehow become the authority on diploma mills and graduates of LBU programs are being accepted into traditional graduate programs). Given the rather inflated and often untrue claims that are common in these situations, it's fair to be skeptical. On the other hand, sourced information - from independent, verifiable sources, is always good. If you can provide that, go ahead and put it in. - Nascentatheist 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As one of six approved schools of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International, a fellowship of over 4,000 churches, LBU submits to a review three times a year by the National Board of Directors of the BBFI. - Davesig

• Excellent. Then what you should do is add that information. It doesn't negate the past. Nothing can change that. But if LBU is looking to rehabilitate itself as an institution, certainly that's pertinent information, and there's nothing wrong with you adding it to the article (make sure you put in your sources - remember WP:NOR). However, adding that information while taking out information that you don't happen to like, but is, in any case, true, is whitewash. - Nascentatheist 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In my research I have discovered many LBU alumni with current academic posts at "traditional" universities. If necessary I can provide individual web links to their faculty pages. - Davesig

• I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional," especially since you put it in quotes, but again, if you can provide that kind of information, especially if those alumni currently hold those posts as a consequence of their receipt of a degree from LBU, do so. Find sources for the information and then add it to the article. No one will begrudge you adding "positive" information as long as you can source it. - Nascentatheist 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Numerous very highly-regarded Baptist leaders have spoken at LBU commencements in recent years, a significant endorsement, I think. - Davesig

• ...for various definitions of "highly-regarded." As one admin pointed out in another article elsewhere, there's a bit of a "cottage industry" of fundamentalists inviting one another to speak at such things or to engage in interviews. That sort of thing would go more to WP:NOTABILITY than whether or not the institution is or is not a quality institution. - Nascentatheist 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The article misleads readers by NOT clarifying that the "acceptability" of LBU's degrees is very similar to almost ANY bible school which chooses not to seek accreditation. This unfairly implies that any problem of acceptance is uniquely because it is LBU. - Davesig

• The article is quite correct in pointing out that unaccredited degrees are often invalid and even illegal to use in some areas of the country. Recall what it says, specifically: "As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." This is true, and it's a statement that appears in the text of quite a few articles at Wikipedia. It means that one cannot use a degree to apply for a job or call one's self "doctor" in some parts of the country without engaging in legal problems. It doesn't mislead at all. In fact, it's a more fair warning than LBU gives. However, it is fair for you to add (as I have already done) that LBU does not seek secular or traditional accreditation and the reasons why that is so. That got edited since, but it's there. Adding that sort of disclaimer is fine because it's apparently true (I still haven't seen it referenced. That needs to be done), but it's whitewash to remove the other comment and replace it with the statement that LBU doesn't seek accreditation. - Nascentatheist 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, to appeal to your personal application of NPOV, imagine that your own personal bio was published on Wiki, and the article emphasized and repeated the many mistakes (but facts) from your reckless youth and did NOT include hardly any relevant and positive facts about the more recent ten years of your life. Wouldn't you agree that, in this example, the article would violate NPOV and be unfair? And woudln't you want it rewritten to portray a more accurate pitcure of who you are today? - Davesig

• Wiki standards (WP:COI) and my own sense of integrity require that I stay away from articles written that might be written about me, but I won't leave it at that. If the information about my "reckless youth" were true, then NPOV requires that I not be concerned with it and no, it doesn't violate NPOV or my sense of it. Facts are facts whether we like them or not. All we can do, if we feel that there is an unfair emphasis on things past versus things of the present, is to add the new information. If there is mitigation, we can add that, too. We can't do that and also take away factual events or facts from the past just because we don't like them. In the end, though we all have to get used to the way things are done at Wikipedia versus more traditional, print encyclopedias, they are about facts - not feelings. As long as it's true and can be sourced, it all belongs in the article - the good, the bad, or the indifferent. If the "bad stuff" is all that's there, then I would hope that some editor would find and add the "good stuff," but it does no good to appeal to my "personal application of NPOV" or personal vanity, since neither have any force in this instance. - Nascentatheist 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, so good

Removing the ACCTS approval claim looks like a good call. I don't see a reference for that, anywhere. Be cautious, however, about lifting claims made by LBU and putting them in the article. Remember, except for mundane claims such as the course offerings and what-not, claims about accreditation and approval as well as the quality of instruction must come from reliable, verifiable sources independent of the subject, which means that you can't rely on what LBU says about itself. They actually exaggerate a bit here and there, and that's why one must be cautious (e.g., LBU isn't really "a pioneer in distance education." Distance education predates LBU by quite a bit. Claims about having the largest selection of distance courses "in the world" are a bit suspect as well.) Remember that LBU doesn't have to prove these things on their own web site and in their own literature; but we have to support, with reliable sources, independent of LBU, pretty much any claim we would make about it in the article. Good going so far! - Nascentatheist 16:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier discussions

Davesig, I placed the Jason Gastrich sock template on your page because of a suspicion that you might be that banned user. I did this because you not only edited Louisiana Baptist University and placed commentary that presumed to justify the lack of accreditation, but you removed factual information while doing so - factual information that might be considered unflattering but that was true, nevertheless, as established by commentary on the subject talk page. This indicated an attempt at whitewash that was characteristic of the banned user and his various socks. If you are not banned user Jason Gastrich, you may contest this issue with an administrator. Unlike those previously involved in these Gastrich-related issues, I have no desire to get into lengthy arguments about them. I will be content if site administration decides that the designation is incorrect. - Nascentatheist 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

APPEAL: I do not know and have no relationship with Jason Gastrich. I am a prospective ministry student who has been researching various online degree programs. I have, in fact, not become a student of any of these institutions. No whitewashing is intended, just an attempt to be fair in the article. The "factual" information in the LBU article strongly implies degrees from LBU are illegal. The truth is that, like MANY bible colleges, LBU is unapologetically not accredited, and they state this clearly on their website. Their website also cautions potential students to check on the acceptability of its degrees with any potential employer or organization. In the ministry field, LBUs degrees are widely accepted.

Through the years, like many bible colleges, LBU has had its ups and downs, but it is unfair to include primarly very old facts that do not represent the true picture of the institution as it is today.

The state of Oregon, recognized as the leader in identifying illegal "diploma mills" does NOT list LBU as an unacceptable school. In fact, Oregon makes it clear that "unaccredited" does not necessarily mean "unacceptable, illegal or diploma mill."

I appeal to a Wikipedia administrator that the LBU article carries an unfair load of very old negative information that does not present an accurate picture of LBU as it is today. (I am not sure if this is how to enter this appeal, I am new to Wiki. I only regsitered because I believed this article to be grossly unfair.) By illustration, please refer to these Wiki artcles for very similar instritutions, noting the much more balanced approach:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Christian_College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Graduate_School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_College_and_Seminary

Be careful about how you go about this

Davesig, you would do well to heed Orlady's comments in her edit summaries at the Louisiana Baptist University article. Your edits are clear whitewash, and if there's anything to what you say, that's not what you want. The article must represent all pertinent information about the school, and history is every bit as important to an encyclopedia article as current information. Fairness includes all information, not just current information; and "bad" information as well as the good. Your insistence in this regard will only fan the suspicions about your true identity. If the schools that you list seem to lack "negative information," it may very well be that they don't have the sort of history that LBU seems to have, or someone simply hasn't yet added it in this, a dynamic encyclopedia. Remember WP:COOL and WP:NPOV, as you post, and watch that you don't violate WP:3RR - Nascentatheist 14:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am EXACTLY who I say I am, and you are correct, I do not want a whitwash. It just seems obvious to me the article, in its present form is "blackwash." I have no agenda other than to ask that the article regarding LBU present a fair image of the school. I challenge an unbiased 3rd party/administrator to read the article and compare it to the others I cited.

You seem to have an agenda: that because LBU lacks regional accredidation it is "unacceptable." That is a matter of opinion, not fact. The overwhelming emphasis in this article by content/word count that repeats the "unaccredited" status and focuses on very old allegations and claims of acceptability, with an obvious strong bias towards "diploma mill." Note that the country's leading state to define diploma mills (Oregon) has NOT classified LBU as such. There are many examples (available from LBU) of students with degrees from LBU who have been accepted into gtraduate programs of regionally accredited schools purely on the basis of their LBU undergraduate degree. So who are YOU to maintain the negative spin about LBU's acceptability? What empowers you to control thsi content? (I really don't know how this works.)

What is the process to have someone objectively review this issue? As a casual visitor to Wiki and someone who has spent considerable time evaluating the credibility of various bible colleges, it is vexing to me that you (as a proudly-stated athiest) are empowered to control thsi article and maintain what I believe to be an obvious bias against LBU, presumably because of the strong Christian values that permeate this institution. You are certainly entitled to your opionion, but let's find some objectivity when controlling the official text in thsi article, please? Please be fair enough to move this discussion to a resolution process?

• Davesig, your rather emotional response supports my suspicions as to your real identity but, having said that, I'll address and refute your comments.

• You claim that the article as it stands appears to be a "blackwash" when it, in fact, simply contains facts. That you are not happy with the facts is not something with which the community can concern itself. This particular article has been undergoing nearly constant revision for quite some time, there is considerable discussion on the talk pages (both archived and active) and all of it has to do with the issues that you have decided to address unilaterally. Wikipedia is a community that engages in consensus, especially when there are content disputes. Certainly, if every editor sought consensus for every edit, nothing would ever get done, but in the case of the Louisiana Baptist University article, any attempt to cover up some of the controversy is going to be viewed with suspicion. You claim that your agenda is to see the University represented "fairly," and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees with that, but "fair" doesn't include removing facts from article simply because someone doesn't like them or finds them disconcerting or uncomfortable. The fact is that LBU has these issues as part of its history, and history is a part of any reasonably comprehensive encyclopedia article.

• You complain of bias in others and seek an "unbiased" party to arbitrate. That sounds fine on the surface, but your own bias is rather clear. Issues such as this are exactly why Wikipedia insists that editors approach articles from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).

• My "agenda" is the same as that of Wikipedia, and that is WP:NPOV. To this end, I would require all articles to be written from that perspective and contain all pertinent information about the subject, regardless of the feelings of advocates or enemies. The claim that the facts represented in the article are "old" is completely irrelevant to their utility with respect to the article. "Old" or not, they're part of what makes LBU what it was and what it is. Encyclopedia articles are not about presenting some subject of another as it presently is, but as it presently is and as it was.

• I was not aware that Oregon was "this country's leading state to define diploma mills." Your claim, as such, is unsourced. Who decided this?

• You also claimed that many "students with degrees from LBU who have been accepted into gtraduate [sic] programs of regionally accredited schools purely on the basis of their LBU undergraduate degree." This is also an unsourced claim. As a member of the academic community in the most heavily-populated state in the United States, I was unaware of this. Can you support this claim with an independent, reliable reference?

• Who am I? Just another editor at Wikipedia. I don't control the content of the article any more than anyone else, but I can and do require adherence to Wikipedia standards, and if you stray from them, there are recourses. If you have issues with the content, the proper mechanism is to discuss the problems with the other editors on the talk page before making sweeping changes to an article that has been "under construction" for quite some time. I would also suggest that the "negative spin" as you put it, is a matter of opinion of your own, and is indicative of your own lack of objectivity. I don't find it to be spin and I don't view it as "negative" or "positive." It's simply what is so about the subject. You are free to provide evidence that can be supported with independent, reliable sources. You are not free to make changes, willy-nilly, that suit your own biases and not expect to have them challenged.

• "What is the process to have someone objectively view the issue?" That process is underway, and has been all along. It's called "consensus," and it's part of what makes Wikipedia what it is. You can see some of that consensus on the LBU talk page, in which editors of all kinds as well as administrators have taken part.

• What "obvious bias" do I have against LBU? This is your own perception and not drawn from anything in particular that I believe I have written at Wikipedia. My own opinions about LBU are irrelevant when I am here, just as yours must be. In fact, to ensure that some degree of neutrality is maintained, yes I edited your contribution, but then I included part of it in the article (e.g., the part about LBU not actually seeking secular accreditation) because I felt it was a fair point - unreferenced as it was. Before I created my account, I edited anonymously for quite a while, and inserted "positive" comments in the articles of a number of "Christian" colleges and universities, usually about curriculum and accreditation, but certainly nothing that has ever been declared "negative" before. I say again: If LBU has these issues and others do not, that's not the problem of the other schools or of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV requires that that information be included and certainly that it not be deliberately and specifically excluded, which would constitute whitewash.

• Whether or not LBU represents "strong Christian values" is irrelevant to its value as an encyclopedia article at Wikipedia, and I have not expressed an opinion on that subject. So you are wrong about that, too. My being an atheist is completely irrelevant, as well. This really isn't an issue of "Christians versus atheists" or even "Christians versus everyone else," as a couple of your fellow Christians have tried to represent and as you seem to imply.

• There are several Wikipedia guidelines and policies that your edits and your comments have violated. If you are not who I believe you to be, and you truly are a new editor and a casual visitor, consider learning and understanding WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:BATTLE, and WP:NPA. All of these will help make you a better Wikipedia editor. If, on the other hand, you only want "Christian" articles that talk about "Christian" subjects in a good light and leave out the bad, I would submit that Wikipedia is not for you. - Nascentatheist 08:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should visit other articles

Davesig, your editing history makes it appear that yours is a single purpose account, and the nature of your edits at Louisiana Baptist University are causing me to reevaluate if I was too hasty in removing my suspicion that you may be Jason Gastrich. By all means, add referenced information to the article, but don't remove or attempt to minimize or make excuses for other, sourced information simply because you feel that it is "old" or reflects poorly on the university. This is an encyclopedia. As an editor, you don't have the luxury of feelings either way with respect to the matter. Consider, also, that it would be a good idea to take a break from the article and editing some other articles. - Nascentatheist 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call on the Morey comments at Louisiana Baptist University

I confess to having had some problems with that being included in the article. While I do believe that the alumni are a reflection of the school and the value and quality of the curriculum, I wasn't so sure that the Morey issue warranted so much verbiage or if there should have been a referral to the article about him. It does read better with it gone, altogether. - Nascentatheist 05:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)