Talk:Regent University/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
RFC re: Goodling
- Should a university alumnus's involvement in a national political scandal be mentioned in the body of the University's article (e.g., a section on controversies or reputation)?
- User:Madcoverboy contends that the alum's involvement in the controversy attracted increased scrutiny (as measured by media coverage) towards the University and warrants mention in the article body under an existing section on controversies since the alum is the most iconic/famous/notable example of the controversy being discussed.
- User:Therefore and User:Collectonian contend that including the alumnus and his/her role in the scandal in the article body is guilt by association and has nothing to do with the actions of the University. They have no problem with the mention of this alumnus in the notable alumni section but not to be used as a reflection of the institute's reputation.
- Agree with User:Therefore and User:Collectonian. As much as I am not fond of the school, trying to pin Monica Goodling and her controversy on the school as a whole is unfair.There is no indication that she is anything near a "typical" alumna.Ngchen 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Therefore and User:Collectonian. As much as I hate politics, I believe that it is unfounded to nail an alumna's failures to the institution who gave her an education unless there is direct involvement of Regent University in the scandal. This sets a negative precedence for future articles, in which people involved in any scandals or controversies will then subsequently bring down the NPOV of the articles belonging to the involved party's individual affiliations, from elementary school to the grocery store they shop at. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Therefore and User:Collectonian. If we start this kind of guilt by association, the Kevin Bacon article's going to be huge. Sarcasticidealist 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree We wouldn't list her for it if we had not listed her anyway, but Director of Public Affairs for the U.S. Department of Justice is sufficiently notable that she should have been listed regardless of any controversy in her career. Since it was controversial, it is fair to mention it. DGG (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have been asked to explain further. I see her name only to the alumni section, where it is appropriate. Where else is it in the present version? I may be skipping over, but then so is my browser search function. I recognize she is alluded to in the content of some of the references, but I dont see how that is a problem. DGG (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I notice she has only a brief mention under the alumni section in Messiah College (which, it just so happens, is my alma matar). This is exactly how it should be; a college is made up of more than one person with 15 minutes of fame on the national stage. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have been asked to explain further. I see her name only to the alumni section, where it is appropriate. Where else is it in the present version? I may be skipping over, but then so is my browser search function. I recognize she is alluded to in the content of some of the references, but I dont see how that is a problem. DGG (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
