Talk:Regent University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regent University article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Placement of reputation section

Ttnrwtvl moved the reputation to below the Alumni section with the explanation "Mover reupation to the end to because it is a heading for the entire university". I agree that it should come after the Campus and Student life sections but it should be above Alumni which is the standard used on other pages. Reputation involves the entire college as it includes the Princeton Review. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid the move as its current placement was sort of based on the MOS (which is missing that section specifically, so went with the placement of other sections as a guide) and in looking at some of the featured University articles with a similar section, and as a result of the above discussions on the infamous Bush admin hires. I'm open to change, though I think the explanation is not quite a good one. After all, the whole article should (I hope) be about the university ;-) I could certainly see the good points to having it above alumni. Collectonian (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ttnrwtvl needs to come in here and talk about further edits. I don't want to see any more sweeping changes without discussion in this article. --GoodDamon 19:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure if I agree with that. In this round, Tntrwtv is making positive, good faith additions to the article that appear to be uncontroversial. Sure, we need to go in and edit for a more neutral tone and add some references. I think the best strategy is to communicate with the editor either here or on his talk page what are WP policies. However, except for the moving of the Reputation section (which is arguably supportable), the editor has filled in the sections relating to Student life and the campus which the article needed. I'm trying not to bite the newbie. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and I'm pleased to see a note from Ttnrwtvl below. My main complaint was that it took so many warnings and reverts. Ttnrwtvl, I'm glad to see you here. --GoodDamon 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Univeristy Reputation

Is this NPOV? All of the information appears to be in an effort to discuss negative press. I dont see this type of section used on other University Pages. I'm sure every university has negative press, especially the type mentioned here. Is this appropriate for this wikipedia. Is it possible that this should either be neutralized or removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttnrwtvl (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tntwtv and welcome to the talk page! First off, a couple of process points: Add new sections to the bottom of the talk page (you can use the + tab at the top to do so automatically -- but that is only for new issues, not for adding comments to existing issues). Also, be sure to sign your comments -- add four tildes at the end or click "Sign your username" in the edit boxes below.
Now on to your issue. If you take the time (you'll need alot ;) ) and read the above sections to see that this paragraph has been exhaustively discussed in detail. If you do the reading, we can avoid having to reiterate them here. However, consensus is always up for discussion and I welcome any ideas you may have -- specially, what part of the section do you feel is not neutral? If you go to other articles Reed College and MIT, you will find that they have sections discussing controversies related to their colleges. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And to be clearer, the only sentence I would characterize as "negative" is:

An article about a recent Regent graduate who interviewed for a government position and Regent's low school rankings have been cited as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights law experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division.

However, this is from a news report from a reliable source and written in a matter-of-fact neutral tone. The beginning of the paragraph describes the increase in RU alumni in the Bush administration; a fact that RU itself advertised and the reason why this may be so. The second paragraph, for balance, are positive statements in relationship to these issues. The Wikipedia policy of neutraily doesn't mean that there are no POVs expressed but that any POV statements are attributed to a reliable source and, when available, balanced with contrary statements.
The other two sections, Rankings and bar passage averages, are standard and matter of fact. Placing 7th in quality of life is a very positive ranking. Thoughts? 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That sentence is very neutral in tone, and should probably stay. It's just a statement of fact; that article and Regent's low rankings have been cited in that manner by both insiders and other media. The sentence makes no judgment call on whether or not there's any merit there. --GoodDamon 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested reformatting of degree programs

I've expanded some of Ttnrwtvl's additions about the differing degree programs offered. I'd like to suggest presenting all of the degree programs in the following table. I put it here first as I'm afraid Collectonian may be upset at the replacement of all of the prose. ;)

School Degrees Offered
School of Undergraduate Studies B.A. in Animation, Cinema-Television, Communication, English, Government, Journalism, Religious Studies, Theatre, B.S. in Interdisciplinary Studies (Elementary Education), Global Business, Organizational Leadership & Management, Psychology
The School of Communication & the Arts M.A. in Communication, Theater, Journalism, M.F.A., Ph.D. in Communications
School of Divinity M.A., M.Div., D.Min., Ph.D
School of Education M.Ed., D.Ed.
School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Organizational Leadership and Strategic Foresight, MBA
Robertson School of Government M.A. in Government
School of Psychology & Counseling M.A. in Counseling, Human Services Counseling, Psy.D. in Clincial Psychology, Ph.D. in Counselor Education & Supervision
School of Law J.D.

Naturally I'd add references. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats the usual standard in other university articles?  :) Collectonian (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ugly lists -- you'd be mortified. ;) I think this sort of informational data presents well in a table. But that's just my 2 cents. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With apologies to Maria Boren

I have deleted mention of Maria Boren, candidate/cast member in the second season of The Apprentice, in the noted alumni section. My instinct is that this is a trivial inclusion. But I don't watch reality television so I may be blinded to the extent of her fame and if you feel I'm incorrect, feel free to re-add. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...unless she won, not really notable. ROFLOL, just couldn't take the tags anymore, eh? ;-) Collectonian (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. But I do agree that it is a better read when structured properly. I hope I done well. ;) ∴ Therefore | talk 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to Harvard and Yale

What's the point of including Harvard and Yale in talking about Regent's victory in the ABA competition? I'm sure Regent also defeated a whole host of other schools as well when they won. Why not mentioned all the other schools Regent defeated? Singling out Harvard and Yale seems misleading in its intention. Also, should every school who've ever defeated Harvard and Yale in any competition bring that up as well and have that included in the articles about them? That would be silly. Purposely citing Yale and Harvard is trying to setup a comparison. If that's the intention, then one should do a full comparison of the three schools rather give only a tiny sliver of the facts. In any case, Regent's reputation can be established independently of those two or any other schools; their strengths or weakenesses speak for themselves regardless of other schools. Comatose51 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that Regent defeated Harvard and Yale. Instead it states that in the previous year Harvard and Yale won these competitions. The sources don't indicate that Harvard and Yale even competed that year. The purpose of the sources (Bill Moyer of PBS and the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage) is to establish the improvements at the law school. The implication is that some of the students are beginning to compete with other more higher rated schools. That said, you make a good point that its use in this article can be inferred as an attempt to establish the school's reputation through comparison. That wasn't my intent. In the past, some editors have attempted to excise the entire section saying it was trivial. See the section titled "Competition" under Talk:Regent University/Archive 1#Discussion of law school information and Talk:Regent University/Archive 1#Removal of ABA competitions. I added in the reliably sourced statements to give the wins credibility. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 03:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? every law school wins moot court competitions & I don't see it noted on their wikipedia pages... is it really worthy of the wikipedia to note that Regent University won them?66.108.74.175 (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously. Find reliable sources such as Bill Moyers and Savage from the Boston Globe that make pointed references to these other law schools' wins, then go ahead and include them in their respective pages. Here mention is merited because of said reliable sources. Even without these sources, most schools list almost every football competition win (see Notre Dame). Much of these issues have been discussed in the above referenced archived talk pages. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note: these are national wins. You may be more familiar with schools' local and regional wins. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
National wins obviously don't occur frequently, but with most schools entering 25 or more competitions a year, they're hardly major accomplishments either. For instance, my alma mater had five regional wins and two national wins last year... a banner year to be sure, (and one sadly not to be repeated this year) but not really all that noteworthy. Plus, Notre Dame's football wins are listed on the Fighting Irish article, not the University article. If this article was called Regent University Moot Court Team, I wouldn't be debating the triviality of the comment... of course that article wouldn't meet the notable requirement of the wikipedia.69.64.202.194 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What may not be necessarily notable for your school (I'm presuming it is not a tier 4 ranked school), has been found notable for Regent by two independent reliable sources. Having a separate page Regent University Moot Court Team wouldn't have a problem due to its notability per se but because it would be less than a mini-stub. Plus, you would need to reference it from this page anyway which would take just about as much real estate. I know you were making a rhetorical suggestion but I don't feel that it disproves the notability of these three sentences. At any rate, the notability guidelines that govern the existence of pages don't apply to its contents. Here, we satisfy the requirements of verifiability through the use of four reliable sources and the information is not given undue weight. I'm really at a loss on why this should be excluded based on Wikipedia standards, policies and guidelines. Please correct me if I'm being obtuse -- I'm being serious, not sarcastic. We are talking three sentences here vs. University of Notre Dame#Football's extensive discussion of its team. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the statements may be borderline advocacy WP:SOAP I don't think much of the bar passage sentence for much the same reason, they both looks like information that has been cherrypicked for advocacy purposes... but at least bar passages are a much more significant accomplishment for law schools (seeing as bar passage is a key requirement for a law graduate successfully going on to become an lawyer). But I'm not really highly concerned about this, mostly I simply think the awards are not very informative to the topic of the article. There's significant differences between them and Notre Dame's football team's extensive discussion. Notre Dame's football wins is probably exactly the type of information a researcher desired to learn when reading a encyclopedia article on the Fighting Irish... conversely the fact that Regent Law School won some unspecified national moot court wins in 2007 & 2008 isn't likely to be information a researcher was seeking learn when reading an article on Regent University. In short, I think it's trivial. I recognize it doesn't need to be excluded based on Wikipedia standards, but I was hoping to generate a consensus that agreed it should be edited. I take it you disagree, so I apparently have no consensus... 69.64.202.194 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The bar passage rates are not cherry picked in the sense that they are designed to put Regency in a good light. Nor is the entire Reputation section soapy which includes both positive and negative information about the school. I'd be surprised if someone investigating Regency as a prospective law school would not consider these wins as having some significance even if you wouldn't. The state-of-mind of a prospective Regent student may, in fact, be different than one interested in Notre Dame in their expectations. Since Bill Moyers and Charlie Savage considered this nontrivial, I too am swayed. I apologize if I am being uncooperative; I remain unconvinced. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize for being uncooperative, you're free to have your own opinion, and your opinion has merit, I simply disagree with it. My only point with the passage rates is you shouldn't devote a sentence to the issue without any context, it seems like advocacy becauses it provides a positive or negative light which could be inaccurate because it is a very incomplete picture. How has Regent historically done on moot court competitions? How many wins do similarly ranked schools have in moot court competitions, how many moot court competitions were entered into, how many competititors were in each competition? Main stream media writers have a habit of providing information without adequate context, that doesn't mean we should too. Nor should Bill Moyers standards for determining if something is trivial be the standards that we should apply in editing this encyclopedia. He devoted a whole sentence to it in a show who's topic was the law school (not the entire university, as is the topic here). The article by Savage devoted a similar lack of depth to the moot court wins, and the topic of that article was the law school's recent improvement. 69.64.202.194 (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You may be right about that but barring my doing original research on the matter, I think the section is fine. The section does highlight historical wins. Should it state, "But it lost in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, etc."? They won. It was national. Reliable sources found it significant irrespective of your own personal point-of-view. Moyers and Savage are the standard for determination because they are the standard that Wikipedia goes by: reliable sources. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth (it's a mantra). Find a reliable source that states that a national win in the ABA competitions is trivial or is handed out like candy, then it may be a candidate for inclusion if relevant, which I'm not conceding. Find a reliable source that states that other tier 4 schools commonly get similar wins, then that would make more sense. But I'm not going to research all of the tier 4 schools' wins and report on it here because that would be a vio of WP:NOR. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources are a requirement for admission, but not every piece of information with a reliable source should be admitted. I'm suggesting this information is trivial, I've explained why. I don't think the fact that a couple reporters mentioned a moot court victories somehow makes this nontrivial, its just moot court, and every school wins them. The standard for inclusion might not be truth, but if we know it to be false or misleading we should choose not to include it irregardless. And while we shouldn't include original research or unsourced information we have, it should inform what sourced information we do include.66.108.74.175 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Every law school wins national ABA competitions? That isn't true. If it were, then this is trivial. Otherwise, I stand by the section and the sources. Similar arguments were raised against Savage's analysis of the Bush hires. An editor complained that Savage failed to look "at the number of positions open over the period, what percentage went to Regent alums, and how that deviated or didn't from previous hiring patterns." Your complaint is with Charles Savage. Write to him and have him retract or expand upon his statement and then we can modify here. Or, again, find RSs that state that this is irrelevant and trivial. Why so adverse in including a positive, factual statement in a section rife with negative analysis? Where is the harm? That it personally offends your sense of notability? To others, possibly not from higher tiered schools, it is notable. Your POV is not sufficient even if a personal guidepost. I hope my tone isn't taken as strident; it is intended as collegial. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)