Talk:Pacific Union College/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

CPhilpot, note that Wikipedia rules of conduct do not support removing content that you simply disagree with. No one person or organization owns the PUC Wiki page. Save Rural Angwin is a valid link. Many in the Angwin community believe SRA's actions to be positive. This link has been restored. Apease 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

SRA vs PUC links

APease, I spent some time working on the links to the Angwin page and it seems to me enhancing the census and demographic info in the Angwin page fits the topic better then placing all the items in the PUC page. And no, I have not removed any thing based on agreement but rather in a search for supported NPOV data. Cphilpot 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Making a link to Angwin from the PUC article is fine. I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your comments above. If there's a controversy about the expansion of PUC, it seems logical to put that on the PUC page. I don't know what you are referring to by 'census and demographic info'. EdJohnston 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Craig, as long as you don't delete the legitimate link to Save Rural Angwin again, this issue is resolved. Indeed, the links I've added to Census data for Angwin should be considered a good thing. However, you also removed some negative comments that were apparently from a PUC student, as follows. "A recent aggressive move by students to open more communication with the administration, which has failed in its entirety. Has led many students to doubt the currents administrations abilities to choose what is best for PUC. This as well as a new move to control more of the students expressive outlets such as concerts and acoustic venues has led to deep-seated resentment among the student body." It seems to me you could request, through this discussion page, some substantiation for the comment, but just deleting it is solely a matter of opinion, and certainly appears to be an attempt by you as a member of the PUC administration to remove anything negative about PUC. This sort of approach doesn't work in the long run. PUC should welcome the negatives, however painful, and try to improve, rather than trying to stifle dissent, whether among their own student body, employees, or neighbors. Apease 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Craig, I see that you've also altered, without any documentation to support it, the sentence I included about the sale of PUC's agricultural land. Hundreds of acres (specifically, 526 acres outside the Angwin Urban Bubble, which are all zoned agricultural) of agricultural land will be sold to Triad for development. That's not a "small amount". Although PUC doesn't admit that directly in writing, it is easily calculated. At this point, I have to ask for advice from the Wikipedia folks how to address this problem, without simply reverting to my earlier version (which is frowned upon as a matter of procedure). Apease 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I Cantori

An unidentified editor added a segment on PUC's music group I Cantori. This was a good addition - but I thought it was added in the wrong section, and lacked the more objective, encyclpoedic style. I made some changes - but I think it would be great to beef up that section with a more comprehensive description of the music groups at PUC. I do not have this information, but I hope someone who does will supply it. Gogh 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


I am that unidentified editor. What kinds of things would you like to beef up that section of music groups? I can provide you with any information you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.117.163 (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

List of college presidents?

I suggest that the list of presidents be removed as not notable, since the list takes up a lot of space, unless any of them have their own WP articles. Perhaps this list is available somewhere on the college web site, in which case we could link to it? It would be reasonable to include the current president, and perhaps a sentence or two about him. EdJohnston 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had seen a section like this under another college page and thought it was typical.Gogh 06:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DAS

I really like the addition of the DAS information. However, until someone has the time to give a more comprehensive list of campus clubs, I don't think it should stand as the only entry under the heading of Clubs. Also, the list of productions was incomplete - and a complete list would probably be too long for the PUC entry. I modified this so that it stands under its own heading for now, and also gives just a few illustrative productions, and link to the PUC DAS page that lists more (but not all) of the DAS productions. DAS has been productive and important enough that one could argue that it deserves its own page; if someone had time to work on that we could link to it from here. Gogh 03:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that comment on the Dramatic Arts Society? Allowing this type of material could cause a dramatic expansion in all our university articles. We don't list all the courses taught at PUC, and a list of all the plays produced there seems unnecessary as well. It is not a great surprise that colleges have student activities, but it's not notable either, unless an individual activity is famous in some way that can be documented. Winning a national prize of some kind would be evidence. EdJohnston 03:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point. I actually pruned the previous, longer list of DAS productions, keeping just a few as illustrations, pointing out that a comprehensive list was probably not appropriate here. I am not sure why you seem to be suggesting that we now have a list of all the plays produced at PUC. I did link to an external page that has a more extensive list. I thought that was consistent with wiki practice, but I may be wrong. My suggestion was for someone to work on a separate PUC-DAS page, and perhaps it is this that you are objecting to? I am not sure just how notable an organization has to be to qualify for its own wiki page. My argument in favor of doing so is that, in the context of the kind of college PUC is (SDA, conservative, Christian) the number, type and quality of the productions are all notable. This could be explained, developed and supported on a page of its own, but would probably give too much weight to DAS in an article about PUC. For one example of a reliable source that comments on the quality of PUC DAS, see the review of their current production "Red Books", published on the web page of the San Francisco Public Broadcasting station KQED (the link is on the main PUC page - http://www.kqed.org/arts/performance/index.jsp?id=14543) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogh (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Endowment

There is currently a local dispute about land development in Angwin. I think some mention of that is appropriate on this page, but I also think it is important not to allow that dispute to take over this page. If others think it is justified, perhaps a new page devoted just to that dispute can be created, and then linked to from here.

What is relevant here is that the college had made increasing its endowment a high priority, and that this has lead to exploring options for developing its land. I do not see the relevance of what outsiders think about the need to increase the endowment. It may be that what outsiders think about the endowment is relevant to the local dispute about zoning and development, but to the extent that this material is encyclopedic, and deserving of mention on wikipedia, it should be on a page dedicated to that dispute, and not on a page about the college per se. I deleted a recent addition of extended discussion of the endowment issue. The link provided to an analysis of the college endowment by an outside group does not function, but, as noted above, I also do not believe that is relevant to this page.Gogh 19:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Pacific Union College is defending the environmental impact of its development project based on financial stringency, then this information becomes germane. If they had said nothing about finances when proposing that development, I would have agreed with you. I believe this stuff is now on the table. I think that the pointer to GuideStar is OK, and pointers to any newspaper articles are OK. I'm not sure that directly pointing to the PDF on an activist site is quite so justified; that could be discussed. EdJohnston 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. An extended treatment of the very vigorous debate about Angwin land use is not appropriate to this article about the college. You may well be correct that a discussion about the college finances is relevant to a discussion about the proposed development project, but that belongs on a separate wikipedia page (if in fact such a discussion belongs on an encyclopedia at all). If you think the comments on the current page that relate to the proposed land development are loaded too much in favor of the College's position on their proposed land development, then I think we should discuss that at some length here, with an eye not towards a more extensive treatment, but towards cutting down what is there now to make it more descriptive and less polemical (if that is how you see it now). I think that something that simply states that the college is in the process of trying to develop its land in order to increase its endowment is appropriate and descriptive, and does not require getting bogged down in the pros and cons. Linking to other pages that make the arguments on both sides is probably sufficient - but if you want to make the argument that a separate wikipedia page devoted solely to the land deal is needed, I am open to being convinced, and would be willing to work on it with you if convinced it was appropriate. What I do believe, strongly, is that a page devoted to PUC should not be consumed by the debate over the land deal, since the college is much more than this proposal, and its wikipedia entry should not be hijacked (even unintentionally) by a political debate. Gogh 01:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Editors who patrol for Conflict of Interest issues are very sensitive to apparent removal of criticism from articles. Even if a separate article is created on the land deal, a balanced summary of the situation should remain in this article. Wikipedia's interest in currently-happening topics should roughly follow what the mainstream press finds interesting. If a large percent of all press mentions of PUC are in connection with the land deal, then our information on current events at PUC should not differ widely from that ratio, in my opinion. Third-party commentary is what establishes notability. The Endowment section now contains about 2,800 bytes and I don't believe that is too large, given the importance of the land development issue. EdJohnston 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, PUC is one of the oldest existing colleges in California - I do not disagree with you that the current land proposal deserve mention here, but I don't think you can really justify that it should take up a major portion of the article. Are you suggesting that we do a comprehensive search of all media mentions of Pacific Union College and determine what fraction refers to the recent controversy over land use? I suspect that the vast majority of those mentions would relate to the thousands of PUC alumni over the years and their various accomplishments. Many college pages do have large sections on Alumni - maybe we should add that here. Note that I am not suggesting at all the removal of critical material in this article about PUC - just that we not get into an extended treatment of the rather arcane issues under debate (are we going to have 2800 bytes on the various interpretations of an "Urban Bubble" in Napa County as well?). Looking this section over, it seems to me that the problematic passage is in the opening sentence - and maybe the section title. Here is how it currently reads:
"Endowment
Like other small private colleges of its type, PUC has come under increasing financial pressure. In the summer of 2006 the PUC board and administration embarked on an aggressive campaign to enlarge the college endowment, and reduce dependence on student tuition, through the development and sale of a significant portion of its large land."
What if we simply changed the section heading to "Proposed Land Development" and removed the first sentence in this paragraph entirely? If you want to add more links to sources that summarize pro and con arguments (although there are already several of these at the end of the article) we could do that too. It seems this would remove what may seem something of a presumption that the land development is necessary, and retains a mention of both the pro and con position. I will wait a few days, and if you do not object I will try an edit like this in the text and see how it works.Gogh 03:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Changing the heading to 'Proposed Land Development' is reasonable. Indicating that the college's financial needs are involved is surely appropriate, though the first sentence in this paragraph (the one you want to remove) can certainly go. Lengthy chit-chat is not necessary, but if the mainstream press reports negative comments about the college's plans, that fact should not be ignored or glossed over.
From your comments above, I am still uncertain whether you consider 2800 bytes to be too much for the issue being discussed. The present section seems OK to me, fairly neutral and not too long, so I'm not sure why you argued at such length above that there could be a need for a separate article on the dispute. The recent edit history does not show anyone trying to insert material of excessive length, unless I didn't go far enough back. EdJohnston 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this response - I will take a stab at a revision along these lines, and then see what you think. My point has not been that what we currently have (or even the sentence or two that you proposed adding) was too much. My point has been that to take the section in the direction that you suggest would almost certainly result in much more elaborate and lengthy detailing of the various positions. For example instead of responding as I have, I could have just added a couple of sentences after yours summarizing arguments, reported in mainstream press reports, that were in opposition to yours. You (or someone else) could have done something similar in response to a slightly different point I may have alluded to. I am not sure where such a tit for tat could have stopped, or who would have been authorized to blow the whistle. It seems more reasonable to limit the material here to what is relevant to PUC, and try to avoid getting too far off topic. Note in other parts of this discussion page where the advice has been to give less details about related tangents (past presidents of PUC; list of plays produced by the colleges' Dramatic Art Society).Gogh 07:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Your new edit looks OK to me. EdJohnston 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PUC-med.jpg

Image:PUC-med.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is collecting less-relevant material

Wikipedia should not serve as an extension of the college's own web site. Some things that I believe should not be included here:

  • 1. Hours of operation of Elmshaven
  • 2. Name of the current organist
  • 3. Long list of recent productions by the drama society

We should be focusing on important encyclopedic facts that can be referenced to reliable sources. Also, the testimonial to the quality of the organ (top ten in the world, or something) lacks a reference. (Ref. 9 says nothing about that claim). There is also still some text that sounds like advertising language: The decision to remain a college was based on the institution's deep commitment to high quality liberal arts undergraduate teaching. EdJohnston (talk)

I made most of the above suggested edits, with exception of sample titles of DAS productions, which I argue is appropriate, given that many who turn to an encyclopedic article about this Adventist College will want to know what kind of dramatic productions are held there, as drama is still controversial within this community. I have also added the correct citation for the claim about the organ - though this is to the College website; if this is not appropriate let me know and I will just delete it. I notice I just forgot to revise the language about the decision to remain a college to remove the more PR orientated language - I will do that now. [[[User:Gogh|Gogh]] (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)]

St. Helena Star

Can somebody please make this a redirect to Napa Valley Register which owns it? This will remove a redlink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.97.219.133 (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

69, are you sure this is according to Hoyle? One argument for keeping redlinks is that "they encourage people to write articles that are missing". --Kenatipo speak! 12:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, technically St. Helena Star is published by Napa Valley Publishing which also publishes the register (and the Star's website is part of the Register's...). I suppose someone may write an article about the Star, but wouldn't it look better for the time being if it simply redirected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.97.198.213 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel the way you do about redlinks -- that they're ugly. (But, I went and read about them and it says they encourage people to write new articles, so, they are acceptable even in Featured Articles.) I also have a negative feeling about blue-links that don't take you to the article you're expecting. In this case, I wrote the new article; so, everybody's happy! --Kenatipo speak! 23:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You are the man! Just wondering, are you planning to stick around to improve this article? Its current status is pretty sad so I'd like to substantially improve it if possible... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.98.239 (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Salegi wM BelloWello! How you be, bro? Too bad about Fountainviewkid, huh? My intentions for this article are to find citations for everything, if possible, and to add back info about PUC Church, the Rieger organ, and possibly even Ellen G herself. --Kenatipo speak! 05:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Desegregation Leader

I believe the claims in the article that PUC is a leader in desegregation are not adequately supported by objective evidence. While the specific examples provided are supported by apparently appropriate citations, adequate support for the larger claim would require a fairly comprehensive review of PUC's record over the last 100 years, which is at best mixed, and would include a number of instances of segregation and discrimination (note a recent PUC President publicly apologized for PUC's record of racial discrimination). If someone wanted to write a section that reviewed this material I think it would be relevant and useful. In the absence of such a developed section, I think the overly broad claim here should be removed. I suggested keeping the information about the African American alumni who went on to important leadership positions, perhaps moved to the end of the history section. I will wait at least a week and then make these changes myself unless someone posts a good reason not to. Gogh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

The following passage, was deleted: “Pacific Union College was a pioneer in desegregation within the Adventist Church. From some of its earliest days, PUC was open to all ethnic groups even while other Adventist institutions refused to accept them or used discriminatory practices.”. There are two claims here, and neither is supported. The claim that PUC was a pioneer in desegregation requires more than just citing the existence of a few early AA graduates. Unless some credible and informed source has reached that conclusion and defended and published it somewhere, I think it is inappropriate here – keeping it would require an entire, perhaps lengthy, section balancing both pro and con anecdotes, which would seem to get the article derailed. Perhaps a separate wiki article on segregation in the Adventist church could be started, and PUC’s role in this could be included there. The claim that PUC was open to all ethnic groups at a time when this was not true at other Adventist institutions would require support, but also discussion of the history of desegregation at other California institutions at the time. Again, this would seem to lead away from the topic of this article.

With apologies, I have made the edits discussed above a few days earlier than planned, since I had the time this evening, and will not during the Thanksgiving holiday. I hope this did not cause anyone planning on posting a counter-argument any distress. We can always revert if I have overlooked good reasons for the original text.

In the "History" section of the article I deleted the following passage: “Pacific Union College was a pioneer in desegregation within the Adventist Church. From some of its earliest days, PUC was open to all ethnic groups even while other Adventist institutions refused to accept them or used discriminatory practices.” There are two claims made in this deleted section, and neither was supported. The claim that PUC was a pioneer in desegregation requires more than just citing the existence of a few early AA graduates. Unless some credible and informed source has reached that conclusion and defended and published it somewhere, I think it is inappropriate here – keeping it would require, in my judgement, an entire, perhaps lengthy, section balancing both pro and con anecdotes, which would seem to get the article derailed. Perhaps a separate wiki article on segregation in the Adventist church could be started, and PUC’s role in this could be included there. The second claim, that PUC was open to all ethnic groups at a time when this was not true at other Adventist institutions, would of course require support, but also discussion of the history of desegregation at other California institutions at the time. Again, this would seem to lead away from the topic of this article. If someone knows of a credible source that makes and supports this second claim, we can put it back.

I moved the reference to the first African-American to be ordained an Adventist minister to the alumni section of this article, which I think it fits best, though he apparently did not actually graduate from PUC. Since the existing alumni section is written in a non-specific form, without names, the name of this person could not be included. There is a link to a separate article on PUC Alumni, and it might be appropriate to add that name there (though again, he apparently only attended, and did not graduate from, PUC).

Again, I mean no disrespect to the original editor who added the deleted and moved material. If anyone feels strongly about the original format, we can discuss and then revert if indicated (or, of course, revert and then discuss).--Gogh (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Union College "advanced school of theology", 1934, summer session forerunner of SDA Theological Seminary.

Gallagher, Eugene V.; W. Michael Ashcraft editors (2006). African diaspora traditions and other American innovations. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America. Vol. 5. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 52. ISBN 0-275-98717-5. {{cite book}}: |last2= has generic name (help)

Daniells had a particular interest in the professional and spiritual development of pastors. During his years as secretary of the General Conference, he headed the newly formed Ministerial Association and lobbied persistently for publication of a monthly journal for preachers, which began in January 1928, entitled The Ministry. I.H. Evans, a close colleague of Daniells' for decades and his successor as secretary of the Ministerial Association, encourage development of an "advanced school of theology," which started with a summer session on the campus of Pacific Union College in California in 1934. Momentum from that start led to the opening of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in 1937 next to General Conference headquarters in Takoma Park, Maryland, which developed recognized graduate degree programs.

Terence Roberts, one of the "Little Rock Nine", taught at PUC 1975-1977

Adams, Roy. Nine children face an angry town: An interview with Terence Roberts, one of the "Little Rock Nine" http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1505&page=8

Were your parents Seventh-day Adventists?



My mom was, but my dad was never a member. When I was quite young, maybe 3 or 4, my mom joined the church in Little Rock, and we were taken along as kids. Later—I guess I must have been about 12 or 13—I joined the church in Little Rock, and then transferred my membership to Los Angeles. While I was in graduate school in southern Illinois, I attended an Adventist church in Marion, Illinois. Afterward, I went west to PUC [Pacific Union College], where I joined the faculty—from 1975-1977. After that I signed on at St. Helena Hospital and Health Center in Deer Park, down the hill from PUC—from 1977-1985.

So what happened at the end of this period?

At that point, my wife and I moved down to Los Angeles. And it was around this time that we became rather disenchanted with the church because of its slow movement on racial issues. That was around 1994. What had kept us in the church for a long time was the church’s emphasis on health and education. It made so much sense! But we always sort of chafed over our inability to move faster on race.

Liberal Arts College

DonaldRichardSands deleted the reference to PUC as the only liberal arts college affiliated with the Adventist church, noting that this was more accurate, as "Adventists run several "liberal arts" colleges". I did not write the original text here, but I note that the reference provided in the footnote is to a recent article reporting enrollment statistics for SDA colleges and universities, which describes PUC as the only Adventist liberal arts college. I am not sure if DonaldRichardSands has reason to reject this evidence (from Spectrum), or if he just did not see it. I also note that the website: http://www.adventistcolleges.org/CMSPages.asp?PageID=13 lists all of the Adventist institutions of higher learning in North America. Currently there are only three such institutions that still refer to themselves as a college (Union, Canadian University College, and PUC). I went to the web sites of all three schools and looked up how they described themselves. Union describes itself as a "comprehensive college" (see: http://www.ucollege.edu/welcome/campus-description); CUC does not use a specific phrase of this kind to describe itself, except for "university college" - which may mean something specific in the Canadian context (see: http://www.cauc.ca/about). PUC does describe itself specifically as a liberal arts college (see http://www.puc.edu/about-puc). I do not provide this as original research to support the original claim; rather, I provide this as support for the claim made in the published article that the original editor used as support for the liberal arts claim. Given that there are 14 Adventist colleges and universities in North America (AUC was the 15th, but no longer in operation) and only 3 could even possibly qualify as a liberal arts college, and only 1 apparently describes itself as such, it seems relevant to include that information in the article here. It seems clear to me that Union does not describe itself as a liberal arts college (comprehensive college implies that it is not liberal arts), so at the very least the statement could be something like: "PUC is the only liberal arts college affiliated with the Adventist denomination in the United States". I will wait a few days before making any changes to see if DonaldRichardSands or anyone else has any thoughts on this.--Gogh (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Gogh, it is perhaps correct to say that the schools themselves do not describe themselves as "liberal arts". Also, if by "liberal arts college" we mean a school that doesn't offer a masters program, then perhaps PUC is the only Bachelor's level college left of the thirteen. I suggest we examine what "liberal arts" means. If a school offers a "liberal arts" curriculum it is a "liberal arts" college. This compares with a technology emphasis or vocational emphasis. All Adventist, or almost all, institutions of higher learning are "liberal arts" institutions. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition of a Liberal Arts College

It emphasizes undergraduate education and awards at least half of its degrees in the liberal arts fields of study. National Liberal Arts College Rankings

Using this definition, most SDA post-secondary institutions are liberal arts colleges. They may offer a master's program like Southern does now, but the emphasis is still on the Bachelors' Degree. How many Adventist schools do not offer more than a Bachelors' degree: PUC and UC. Other schools meet the definition of a liberal arts college in that they emphasize undergraduate education. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a very experienced wikipedia editor, and I will happily defer to your expertise. My understanding is that articles should not be based on independent research or the subjective judgement of the writer. Classifying schools as liberal arts, or as universities is notoriously controversial, and there are a variety of criteria and definitions that we could cite and invoke here. By the definition you provide, and that used by the old Carnegie standard, I doubt that any Adventist school really qualifies as a liberal arts college (I don't think any Adventist school really grants more than half of its degrees in liberals arts fields of study). One might argue that when an Adventist institution decides to change its name from "college" to "university" it is signaling that it no longer intends to be identified as a liberal arts college - though it might still be described as a liberal arts institution. My point is not to argue for any one of these (or any other) definition of a LAC, but rather that such a discussion is really beyond the scope of the current article. It seems simpler to just stick with how these institutions describe themselves. For reasons that I note above, I think it can be demonstrated that only PUC describes itself as a "liberal arts college" (Union describing itself as a "comprehensive college", which is something different than a LAC). I do not think it would be appropriate to state this in some qualified was, such as "PUC is the only Adventist affiliated institution to describe itself as a liberal arts college", since that really opens the door to a number of other weasel descriptions; for example, an editor who judged that PUC was too liberal to be a true Adventist school might want to describe this institution as a "so-called Adventist college", or as "a college in Northern California that claims to be Adventist". I believe these kinds of descriptions would be seen as violating the spirit of wikipedia entries, and I think the same would be true of a qualified description as a LAC.

Since I don't have a comprehensive description of all Adventist colleges around the world, and am not sure what to make of CUC, I think the best way to edit the sentence under discussion is something like this: "There are nine institutions of higher learning in the United States affiliated with the Adventist church that emphasize undergraduate education and offer a significant number of degrees in the liberal arts (Andrews University, La Sierra University, Oakwood University, Pacific Union College, Southern University, Southwestern University, Union College, Walla Walla University, and Washington Adventist University. PUC is the only Adventist liberal arts college in the United States."

Again, I defer to the expertise of more experienced wikipedia editors on this. I am not the editor who added the original sentence containing the LAC reference, and I don't know how important it is to this article. It does strike me odd that a description used by the college itself on its website, and used in one of the denomination's leading online journals would be deleted based on what seems to me to be the rather subjective and arguable (though reasonable and defensible) judgement of an editor.--Gogh (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


Sources re: Adventist liberal arts colleges

  • "Academics and Majors Featured in SDA Education". Adventist Colleges and Universities. Retrieved 2011-11-30.

    With nearly 500 different academic majors, programs and degrees, you can prepare for almost any career that interests you at one of the many Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in the United States and Canada. Our schools range from liberal arts colleges to medical colleges, but all are based on SDA education values.

Look over this site: many Adventist colleges are included. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

removal of development section

User BelloWello, who I note has been banned from Wikipedia, removed a section on the development/endowment controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_Union_College&oldid=428046387 that was present in the previous version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_Union_College&oldid=427991734 . Unless there is some principled reason why it should have been deleted, I'll restore and update it shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apease (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous user identified only by IP address 24.104.139.179, which is registered to Pacific Union College, has removed most of the section on Endowment and Development. Please note that this Wikipedia page does not belong to PUC, and that arbitrarily deleting Wikipedia content contradicts its terms of service. I'm restoring the content. If some user has an issue with the content, explanation is required. And by the way, sign your edits. Apease (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The information removed was either unsourced or sourced to Save Rural Angwin -- an organization with an activist agenda against PUC which is not conducive to being objective or a source or non-biased information about the deal. The Register and Star have written plenty about it, the section can be based on their reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.104.139.179 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The information provided was sourced, as you can see from all the reference links, which mostly are to public articles in the local papers as you note. All organizations have agendas. PUC has a bias to promote its development plan. Part of Wikipedia's goal is to present alternate views, which the edits you've removed clearly do. SRA does not have an agenda against PUC but simply it's development plans, and its a legitimate issue to report on.Apease (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Its not surprising that you, as a member of the Steering Committee of Save Rural Angwin, would want to include information from that agenda driven group. It seems, however, that they are not a particularly reliable source... particularly given its proclivity towards spreading rumors without substantiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.104.139.179 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

1909, Ellen White on the newly pruchased Angwin property

1909

September 10.

"At home it was reported that Elder G. A. Irwin was still at Angwin, the place just purchased for the new home of the Pacific College (Formerly Healdsburg College), and that he was going the following afternoon to the Fruitvale camp-meeting. On this, Mrs. White though still very feeble, decided to visit the place at once. So early on Friday morning, September 10, the big farm team was hitched to the easiest carriage, and Brother James drove slowly up the six miles of steep rocky road from Sanitarium to Angwin. Then, with Elder Irwin as guide, inspection was made of orchards and vineyards, hay-fields and gardens; the horse barn and carriage house, with their eight vehicles and nineteen horses and colts; the big cow barn, with its twenty cows and hundred tons of hay; then the big swimming pool, and the springs, and the recreation building which later was converted into schoolrooms; and last of all, the six cottages, with thirty-two rooms and the main building with twenty-nine rooms for students, besides kitchen, dining-room, and parlors. {RH January 20, 1910, par. 16}

The following Monday, at the Fruitvale camp-meeting, Mrs. White spoke of the new school site as follows: {RH January 20, 1910, par. 17}

“I was very happily surprised to find here a place where we need not wait to make great preparations before our school can be opened. Here we may call the students to come, and we can begin school work just as soon as they are on the ground. The advantages to be found here are many. A great deal of labor has been put forth to improve this property, which up to the present time has been used as a health resort. {RH January 20, 1910, par. 18} “The Angwin place is more appropriate for our school work than was the property we were previously considering at Buena Vista, near Sonoma. There was on that place, it is true, one very large, expensive building, but this building was not so well adapted to our school work as the buildings at Angwin. At Sonoma other buildings would have had to be erected very soon; but at Angwin there are sufficient buildings for present needs, and our school work can begin at once. {RH January 20, 1910, par. 19}

“The buildings are substantial, and in good repair. The whole bears the appearance of good care and neatness. The large supply of good bedding and mattresses reminded me of what we found at Loma Linda when that property was purchased. The buildings are well adapted to our present necessities. Later on, more may need to be erected. Facilities will be added from time to time as they are needed. {RH January 20, 1910, par. 20}

“I am very glad that we need be delayed no longer in locating our school, and I am more thankful than I can express that our school and our sanitarium are near enough together so that their educational work can blend. The school can help the sanitarium by supplying it with fruit and vegetables, and the sanitarium can help the school by purchasing these things. And the students may receive advantages from both these institutions.” {RH January 20, 1910, par. 21} Sanitarium, Cal.

Editing of "National Liberal Arts College" Section

I edited the sentence "In 2011, for the first time ever, Pacific Union College was ranked as a National Liberal Arts College alongside the likes of Williams and Amherst" to correct the misleading impression left in the original that PUC's ranking was in some sense similar to that of Williams or Amherst, which are the top two ranked liberal arts college in the country, while PUC was not ranked in the top 178. An alternative would be to remove all reference to Williams and Amherst, and simply note that PUC's category was changed in 2011 to National Liberal Arts College. The criterion here should not be what puts PUC in the most attractive light, but what is the most accurate, descriptive information. Gogh (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Non encyclopedic

The majority of this entry seems to have been written to promote the University to prospective students. I am inclined to flag it NPOV or Self-promotion. Anyone agree? 172.11.236.113 (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable faculty section

There is not a current notable faculty section and I was not sure if one should be created? If so, Heather Knight should be listed as follows:

References

  1. ^ "PUC Welcomes 21st President". Pacific Union College. Retrieved October 29, 2013.

Academic Freedom

There were several unsourced claims flagged in this section. I removed as many as seemed indicated. I think the remaining claims are found in the reference provided. Gogh (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

GASP

I notice that there's a lot of back and forth reverting over the inclusion of content related to this club with the admonition to "take it to the talk page" from both sides, and yet surprisingly no-one has actually done so. Allow me.

Near as I can tell, the articles on the club are enough to establish its notability within the college, at least as much as the other clubs and communities. Whether it warrants its own section on a general WP article about PUC is debatable. I'll also note that in my opinion the language used to describe GASP and the amount of content give it WP:UNDUE weight within such an article. A brief mention would be completely appropriate.

Whether or not the club is sanctioned by the university is of little importance, since it is not the job of the article to represent PUC's official position. Conversely, it isn't important from an encyclopaedic point of view that students are made aware of services provided by GASP via the article. I understand that this might be troubling to either side.

I strongly recommend all editors from both sides use edit summaries when making substantive changes to the article, and at least try to reach consensus here. I suspect that both sides have conflict of interest concerns, and reading that guideline would be time well spent. If it helps, I would be happy as an uninvolved editor to contribute a mention of the group to the article.

Pinging the following accounts and IPs that have cropped up on revisions: Simbagraphix, Mrhelmer, Torritorri, 12.21.30.4, Gaypucalum, 121.6.193.219, 38.110.176.86, 2601:9:2B80:77D:B013:29AA:B738:34FC, CFCastillo, Gogh. Cheers, Basie (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As this a unsanctioned group such as Alcoholics Anonymous, a mention would suffice but it reads more as a advertisement campaign propagated by an organization or movement. We need just the facts not a blog which is were it was directly posted, I suggest wording such as "There is an unofficial support group which is for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) students at the college which is open to students and faculty who would like to become more familiar with the challenges faced by LGBTQ individuals" ...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
If Pacific Union College is mentioned in reliable sources about GASP, then it is worth mentioning. Not much is needed, but we should at least have the name included. I will do that now... DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not see the revision that DonaldRichardSands indicated he was going to attempt, so I took a stab at something that is intended to be in line with the sensible and balanced guidance provided by Simbagraphix above. If this misses the mark, why don't we discuss it here more and attempt to find language that can find consensus? Gogh (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Lets discuss the wording to see what we can agree on. Since Pacific Union College is mentioned in reliable sources about GASP, I suggest wording such as "There is an unofficial support group, GASP (Gay and Straight People), which, according to their blog, is for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) students at the college and which is open to students and faculty who would like to become more familiar with the challenges faced by LGBTQ individuals". We cannot put every blog that makes a claim that it is a "open and honest" discussion or others who participate as "allies", that is POV as I am sure if the biblical definition of sodomy as Adventist believe was brought up, that would quickly be cut off. Now, to compare we had a Adventist college that had a call girl ring and they were "open to students and faculty" who would like to become more familiar with the challenges faced by young women needing funds I would say, and it got into reliable sources about the college. Now I am sure the college did not sanction the group or most certainly approve of it, but because it had many sources it could be put in the article for the college. If we stick with just the facts, I think that would be the way to go, it is a unsanctioned group who does xyz, and keep POV out of it. I think it will suffice even though it wont read as a advertisement campaign for LGBTQ as the initial entries. Lets decide on the wording here and come to agreement before any changes on the article....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think your wording is just fine. I see someone simply reverted my last suggestion without discussion here. I am going to edit that with Simbagraphix's language, and ask nicely one more time if anyone who disagrees would be willing to engage in civil discussion here rather than simply reverting. Gogh (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
If I may, I think the "according to a blog" is a little unnecessary and strays from neutral point of view. There are mentions in various sources as already included in the article. One option would be, A student-run LGBT support group, GASP (Gay and Straight People), is available. It doesn't need to be complicated, and in my opinion it doesn't need to be labelled "unsanctioned". I do encourage continued discussion here rather than edits and reversions in the article. Cheers, Basie (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I am persuaded by Basie's point about the phrase "according to a blog" (there is a footnote, so if this is important anyone can identify it for themselves); if we were to make this a consistent practice we would have to go through the entire article and characterize the sources in the text. OTOH, I think it probably is important to keep something like "unsanctioned", since the other groups mentioned here appear to be official groups, and this one is not. If Basie has a particular objection to the term "unsanctioned" maybe there is another way of communicating this - like "unofficial"? I will wait a day to see if there are any suggestions here, and if not will make changes along these lines. Gogh (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The last suggested wording was "There is an unofficial support group, GASP (Gay and Straight People), which, according to their blog, is for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) students at the college and which is open to students and faculty who would like to become more familiar with the challenges faced by LGBTQ individuals" and we are looking at the term "unsanctioned", please wait till this is worked out before making changes. "Unofficial" seems a bit vague so I would not lean towards that but lets see if we can come to a consensus...Simbagraphix (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pacific Union College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Pacific Union College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of presidents of Pacific Union College for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of presidents of Pacific Union College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of Pacific Union College until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo

The photo near the beginning of the article which is supposed to show Healdsburg I'm pretty sure is a picture of Angwin prior to the church, library and gym being built. I'm nearly certain the center building is Clark Hall. May be wrong. Please double check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.59.26.20 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pacific_Union_College/Archive_1&oldid=1178886804"