Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:03, 15 January 2006

Where is the dispute? This is all an invention by Duncharris and should be ignored until he has some proof.--Big Lover 20:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The dispute, Gastrich under a pseudonym, is if this is really worthy of being an encyclopeia article. This is not an invention by Duncharris, it's an invention by you. Harvestdancer 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

accrediting

A few things:

1. LBU claims that they are listed in the directory, but they are not listed in the directory. I have changed the article to reflect this.

2. AACTS has no status with any federal agency. Whether or not it "desires" any status with any federal agency is their business. You can put it in the AACTS article if you like. If you can provide a source from AACTS saying they have not attempted to secure status with the government, then go ahead and put it in.

Sdedeo 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 18:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem paragraph

The following paragraph needs some help. Not only is it enormous, but it needs to be edited for nPOV. I'm going to paste it here, then I'm going to make some edits, so that it will be improved.

Unlike accredited schools and even many that are not accredited, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. A master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and a dissertation obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is also despoited in the United States Library of Congress, available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. Because the policy at LBU does not require these fairly standard practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction. On the other hand, students of the institution claim that LBU does require graduate students to provide hardbound copies of the thesis or the dissertation to the University. It is then stored in the University library. Interested parties wishing to examine a thesis or dissertation are permitted to do so, but may not obtain or examine it by conventional channels. They must visit this library to conduct the examination. Oddly, however, LBU students questioned about this seem unable to identify the exact location or name of the building that houses the library or, failing that, the exact location of the building in which the collection of graduate documents is kept. The University web pages are no more informative with respect to this, rather important piece of information. This has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine the intellectual and academic credentials of an LBU graduate.

New paragraphs:

Unlike accredited schools, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. A master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and a dissertation obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is also despoited in the United States Library of Congress, available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. Because the policy at LBU does not require these practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction.

Students of the institution cay that LBU does require graduate students to provide hardbound copies of the thesis or the dissertation to the University. It is then stored in the University library. Interested parties wishing to examine a thesis or dissertation are permitted to do so, but may not obtain or examine it by conventional channels. They must visit this library to conduct the examination.

Why changes were made:

1. Removed "and even many that are not accredited". Need proof or else its POV.

2. Changed "Because the policy at LBU does not require these fairly standard practices" to "Because the policy at LBU does not require these practices". Need proof that these practices are fairly standard for universities of its type or of universities in general or else its POV.

3. Changed "On the other hand, students of the institution claim that LBU does require" to "Students of the institution say that LBU does require". Changed "claim" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial - "Minding your nuances" for why)

4. Removed "Oddly, however, LBU students questioned about this seem unable to identify the exact location or name of the building that houses the library or, failing that, the exact location of the building in which the collection of graduate documents is kept. The University web pages are no more informative with respect to this, rather important piece of information. This has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine the intellectual and academic credentials of an LBU graduate." because:

a) Who are these students?

b) Were they distance learning students or on-campus students? It would be understandable if distance learning students didn't know where the library in Shreveport, Louisiana was located.

c) Why should the university web site tell people the location of the physical, campus library? Is this unusual that it doesn't?

d) To say "this has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine . . ." sounds very POV. Who are these many people and can you verify this? --Jason Gastrich 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph was restored since it was already nPOV. The fact that many unaccredited schools have the same requirements as accredited schools is common knowledge and therefore does not require a citation. On the other hand, any claim about what LBU requires of its students with respect to publication and storage requirements, without a citation, is not permissible. In other words, "need proof or else it's POV." Consequently, I removed that entire section from the restored paragraph. It was well-written and informative as it was. The removal makes it more succinct, but still well-written and informative. Gastrich cannot "improve" it.

• • And yes, I did toss out bait to see if there would be an attempt to rehabilitate the issue of publication in order to paint the school in a better light. Needless to say, it didn't take long...

• Hysterically enough, Gastrich is one of the students who didn't know what building houses the library.

• • Let's have some more fun: When asked which building housed the library, Gastrich replied, "the library building." When asked for specifics, he couldn't say. He's the only "graduate student" I've ever met (and I've met hundreds) who couldn't tell me what building housed the library at his institution, especially since Gastrich claimed that this building contains both his thesis and his dissertation.

• • • It gets better: There is no "library building" on the LBU campus. All of the libraries associated with the school are electronic: http://www.lbu.edu/maclibraries.html

• • • • Better still: All of the mapping and satellite imagery that can be generated of the address, plus what I've been able to get from a contact living in Louisiana, is that the LBU campus consists of a single building.

• • • • • Gastrich's claims about what is stored and where is clearly fueled by his POV. Normally, that's okay...I have a soft spot for my colleges, too...but the school has issues and Gastrich's edits are intended to mask or mitigate rather than expose for examination. Any further commentary on the issue should be from objective investigation, not from a cheerleader.

• • • • • • The comments are about the LBU library and which building may house it, but Gastrich tries a run around that by writing, "it would be understandable if distance learning students didn't know where the library in Shreveport, Louisiana was located." The issue is not about the "library in Shreveport," but about the LBU "library" - on the "campus" of the school that Gastrich, at least has been taking courses from for a couple of years. Either Gastrich was being disingenuous, or he's having issues with attention to detail...again.

• I could go on, but it's quite clear that Gastrich's comments in the article are POV-driven. He wants readers to think it's a good school or, at least, that there's nothing suspicious or wrong with it. I'm more interested in an objective evaluation of the school, regardless of its educational philosophies, since I am often asked to counsel young people on where they should go to school, depending on their interests, desires, and situation. Given the clear POV perspective that Gastrich brings to this article, and his lack of ability to be objective, there will be no arguments or discussion with Gastrich about this article. Gastrich is a graduate student of this institution and has defended it vociferously (and often emotionally) in a number of different venues. He cannot be nPOV about it. WarriorScribe 03:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It's amazing to me that someone wrote "Need proof that these practices are fairly standard for universities of its type or of universities in general or else its POV." Go to the Library of Congress webpage to find out "Complete dissertations since the 1940s are available on film or fiche in the Microform Reading Room and, since 1997, in full text on computer terminals at the Library."] The point of doing this (with dissertations) and microfilming a thesis is to allow people to check up on credentials from any library/research location, which now includes the internet. LBU does not all this because they make you go to the school to read it or presonally request it from the author.

• • • Right, and by doing so, they violate standard practice. Of course, it's outrageous for Gastrich to ever complain about POV by anyone else, but clearly, if it casts his favored point in a bad light, or if he just thinks it does, it's POV, regardless as to how obvious it might be to, you know, those us whom must operate in the real world. It's a simple fact that the submission of a thesis or dissertation for publication and archiving (even if only in microfiche or electronic form) is standard practice in the academic community. It's also standard practice that these things are made available to the rest of the academic community and to the world, at large.

• • • Gastrich saw the criticism that was there, originally, with regard to this, and decided to try to mitigate it by claiming that LBU, nevertheless, requires students to submit a bound copy for the "library." That, of course (as far as Gastrich was concerned), didn't require "proof," but the standard practices of academia far and wide did require proof (if only to satisfy Gastrich). It's an interesting application of a double-standard that he often employs. If he agrees with it or likes it, it's nPOV and doesn't require proof. If he doesn't like it, it "requires proof or it's POV." WarriorScribe 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Even Harvard's Divinity school for the Doctor of Theology Degree (note: Harvard does not award PhD's for religion)requires that "Once sustained by the Committee, the original dissertation and the first copy in bound form, together with their abstracts and an unbound, boxed copy for University Microfilms International (UMI), should be submitted to the registrar." As noted on the Library of Congress webpage, since 1999, the UMI submits dissertations to the Library of Congress, which are then available for download online --Mike

Diploma Mill

The following should be removed:

However, unlike diploma mills, LBU has degree requirements, including coursework, reading requirements, final exams, and for graduate degrees , writing a thesis or dissertation and maintaining at least a 3.0 GPA.

All diploma mills have "coursework" and "requirements," but it is that very work that is question. Diploma mills by defnition are unaccredited places that do not produce their "graduates" with serious documentation/research (dissertations for example) to prove themselves as having the equilivent of, say, a Harvard PhD graduate. In the sentence in question, "unlike" means "on contrary" or "opposed to." Since LBU is not accredited, the research is not publicly available, the coursework can solely be completed online, the school finances students' educations with tuition payments of $100 a month, if offers PhDs in the students subject making, there is only one email address to contact the entire school, ect., this sentence trying to downplay the similiarities to diploma mills should be removed. Visit the diploma mill page.

Degrees Offerred

The "Degrees Offered" section should be deleted, its long and provides no details. It is irrelevant and sounds like a commerical. Compare this page to Stanford University and Yale, no descriptions of individual degrees. If it is not deleted the section should be expanded on to demonstrate why the section holds value. Wiki does not need to generally describe unaccredited degrees, its on the LBU page if the reader cares.

• Good point. Also, a general comment about how to earn credit is good enough. Anything more specific than that (especially something as lame as "read this book and write a report") sounds like it's selling the school. Specifics of the payment plan (if only because it can change without notice) also read like a sales pitch. WarriorScribe 05:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect standing

I noticed an important section was deleted:

In LBU's 2002-2003 handbook, they said they were listed in the Directory of Postsecondary Institutions published by the National Center for Educational Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education . However, according to their online system, they do not appear to be listed, now.

This section should remain.

• Okay.

Criticisms section

Since this entry goes back and forth several times with regard to positives and negatives, I suggest we have a section for criticisms of the university. This way, we can keep things orderly with a section about the university and a section for criticisms about its standards and such. --Jason Gastrich 08:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but such a section should contain POV criticisms, not just factual info that is positive or negative. -Will Beback 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No criticism section needed it will become POV. The only "criticism" is from the US Department of Education and Library of Congress and should remain in the body. These are facts pointing to a diploma mill MO and should be in the bulk of the are when discussing "writing requirements" and credentials. Gastrich you should refrain from further edits. You have made it clear since you started the article that you are only here to mask the school's qualifications and do not care about the objectivity of the article or the requirements people go through for higher education. Gastrich wants to post about requirements of individual LBU projects and deleted the US Dep. of Education's descriptions, which match LBU, of a diploma mill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.17.89 (talk • contribs)

Page is a mess

The constant reverts and edits that occurred after I left last night turned the page into a mess. It's inconsistent and meandering. It'll get fixed today. For the record, Gastrich is a graduate student in the Ph.D. program at this institution, and cannot approach it with a neutral POV. His edits are designed to disguise the school's flaws and other criticisms, or at least to mitigate them, by trying to "sell the school" as much as possible. Mine are designed for an nPOV. See my comments under the "problem paragraph" section, above. WarriorScribe 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Gastrich should stop posting. His edits are choppy one sentence masks of missing qualifications, which have made the section a mess. His edits have caused a introductory section into several one-sentence paragaphs which are grammatically incorrect. Also the description of diploma mills by the US Dep. of Ed. should remain since many believe this to be a mill. Conversely, some of the "requirements" Gastrich posted do not fit and are details available at the schools webpage. They are part of his POV that fail to have actual relevance. By the way Terenceong1992 might be a sock puppet of his. Grastrich please sumbit your edits to the talk page first to avoid endless reverting (as seen with your edits in the page's history).

What WarriorScribe is saying violates Misplaced Pages's policy on assuming good faith. Furthermore, telling us that he is the one who is capable of nPOV is for us to decide. I will not be avoiding this entry. I'm willing and able to write from an nPOV perspective as anyone else. --Jason Gastrich 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I question that because of Big Lover and and the revert you just made. If your POV edits don't stop this article should be deleted.

Meant to include this, but I'm again doing about six things at the same time: Gastrich is, of course, free to complain that I violate the policy of assuming good faith, but Gastrich has exhausted that. For most editors, I do assume good faith. For him, for good or ill, I cannot. Gastrich has repeatedly shown, through his POV edits, his vendettas, his attempts to sneak links to his domains, and his, well, rather creative accounts of past events, that there are issues when it comes to Gastrich and "good faith." For that, he has no one to blame but himself.

I've already covered the issue of Gastrich and his POV, and there's nothing he will be permitted to "decide." That Gastrich engages in POV pushing has been shown time and time again. Gastrich can whimper about violations of policy while engaging in violations willy-nilly all over the encyclopedia, but his own selective application of "good faith" and "POV" is available for all to see, and will become more and more clear. The fact is that it's Gastrich's non-neutral POV that has been exposed in this case, so again, there's no point even bothering with him. WarriorScribe 21:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted then. Wiki is not here to advertise for diploma mills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.17.89 (talk • contribs)

A fair point for discussion. The consistent attempts to "sell" this school, don't help, and neither do the surreptitious attempts to sneak in links to a domain owned by an "editor." Then again, one could argue that exposure of an institution as a "diploma mill" serves a good purpose, as long as that's truly the case. WarriorScribe 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The bit about the .edu domains seems to come out of left field, so to speak, with respect to the category in which it is contained. Can we put it somewhere else? Perhaps we should create a section that includes that information and the commentary about diploma mills. WarriorScribe 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe move to the .edu discussion to the section about the diploma mill. It should be left in the article because when I first saw the LBU webpage I assumed it was accredited due to the .edu usage. Clearly, as the department of education points out it still could be a mill with the .edu domain. Overall the article is cleaner so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.226.31 (talk • contribs)

It could use a bit more here and there. I'm all about education and non-traditional education is a pretty good way to go for those who can't complete any other way. I'm no fan of LBU, and my own personal feeling is that all Christian schools of that sort (i.e., they don't educate so much as indoctrinate) are "diploma mills," but that's neither here nor there when it comes to an encyclopedia article. Consequently, I think that if the whole story is there, warts and all, people can come to an accurate view of what LBU is all about, even as they are trying to build a legitimate educational institution. I don't know that they'll ever get there, but I don't know that they won't, either. Anyway, the point, obviously, is to present the information fairly and evenly, without POV, of course, as Wiki requires. I believe that the institution can be accurately covered without "selling" it or dismissing it altogether. WarriorScribe 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete

Either the POV edits should stop or this page should be deleted. Before editing this page to fix the point of view, it would have been important to let it remain, but with continuous edits to promote an uncredentialed, fundamentalist Christian school whose facaultly themselves do not have degrees in the subjects they "teach" it should be deleted. If Gastrich wishes to stop reverting articles from the Dep. of Education and putting his own personal links, it should be reconsidered. Wiki is not here to be used by minions of uncredentialed schools to give creedence to their "mission." This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.17.89 (talk • contribs)

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 18:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it did pass one such discussion, but I don't think that precludes another. The attempts to sell the school versus putting up a good, objective article about it will almost certainly mean that the article deletion discussion will get rather lively, at least. WarriorScribe 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now the section is much better and should not be deleted. However, should people continue to vandalize the page making an ad. for the school this might be reconsidered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.199.192.120 (talk • contribs)

I tried to do some edits today, and wrote up and edited a good portion of the accreditation section, then I closed what I thought was just one browser window and it was actually all of them, during a preview. Urrrggg...I'll come back to it. I think we can still do a bit with that section. Right now, I need to do something about the caffeine plasma levels, I think... WarriorScribe 18:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Point of View (POV) Section - Point of View Dispute

I've added the template, and so we can consider the points in dispute here:

There is some reasonable attempt to try to bring in all pertinent information about this institution, without cluttering the article with so much fluff and irrelevancy that it becomes unreadable. Wiki isn't here to sell students on LBU, but as long as an article on the subject exists within the "pages," it should be accurate and unbiased. WarriorScribe 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is still come fluff, but nothing that stands out as point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.226.31 (talk • contribs)

We've removed quite a bit of it. WarriorScribe 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal

This entry needs a section to rebut the criticism in it. See Rapture for one way it can be done. If I write a rebuttal section, will anyone outright object? --Jason Gastrich 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why start a new section on this when you started one two posts ahead. There should not be one, it will open the flood gates for POV. As for your "rebuttal;" what's it going to contain, what's the main point, and what's "debatable." The credentials and expectations of the school are straight forward and a "criticism section" will change that.

The "rapture" is a strictly theological word and is debatable in that context. Debating credentials of a school is much different than debating what a biblical term means.

LBU month

The single sentence about LBU month needs to be expanded. A quote and an explanation would be helpful to the reader without making him/her have to click on a link to find out what it was all about. Single sentence paragraphs aren't good, in general, and certainly not here as this sentence doesn't explain much. --Jason Gastrich 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it does not look like there is much to add. - unsigned comment

Here is a suggestion: "In 2005, Governor Kathleen Blanco declared April to be "Louisiana Baptist University Month". Referring to LBU, she said that Louisiana is proud of their many years of beneficial, hard work as they have offered affordable, University training for its numerous students. "Louisiana Baptist University is truly an important leader in innovative Christian education in the United States and in the world.""

What's on the article page now is fine.

Unnotable alumni

There are some important/controversial people listed on the list and they should remain. Yet, there are people who lack credentials/fame and there is no need to keep them on here. Unsurpisingly, the person on here who created those pages of unnotable ministers is Gastrich, the same person as mentioned above.

The following people should be reviewed for deletion off Misplaced Pages.

• Mal Couch (Page created by Gastrich)
• Thomas Ice
• James McGowan (Page created by Gastrich)
• Chuck Missler
• Mike Randall (Page created by Gastrich's sock puppet Big Lover)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs)

I have heard of Missler and he is probably notable enough to stay. The others i have not heard of although they may also have valid credentials. David D. (Talk) 03:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about that page is at least 1/3 (includes Big Lover) of the page history has his edits... assuming he hasn't use more deceitful sock puppets (which is the same as a lie). Doesn't he claim to be a minister-- a minister who deceives people with the name "Big Lover".

Noting that I created some of these pages is inconsequential; especially because Wiki requires us to assume good faith. If AOL IP address 207.200.116.9 wants to nominate these pages for deletion, he/she can (if IPs are allowed to do so). However, if and when the unbiased people who visit the pages nominated for deletion section on Wiki go and see one of them there, I'm quite certain they will vote to keep. Just take a look at their credentials. They're authors of countless books, presidents of colleges, etc. Instead of criticizing me and pretending like he/she has an angle, AOL IP address 207.200.116.9 should consider that I've helped the community by taking my time to create these articles on notable people. --Jason Gastrich 04:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actors of pornography who have been in over 30 obscure national films are not worthy of being noted on Misplaced Pages. Likewise, someone who writes a book, publishes it themself or through a ministry, and sells 300 copies while pointing to a unaccredited PhD received from LBU is not "notable." And commenting that you made the pages is very important, as people can understand why you post the things you post.

Good faith? sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich. As others have explained, it was assumed intially, but you have made it clear (even without socketpuppets) why you aim to deceive people by hiding facts. The assumption of good faith has proven to be wrong in your particular case. The Misplaced Pages policy is a good and just one, but you will not regain the good faith with many here. You have choosen not to be fair to criticisms and slant the articles your way.

Lastly, I didn't try to delete the names because debate is important. Unlike you I am not "sure" they will or will not be deleted. I posted here for view points from people and not their sock puppets. If they are kept, fine. If not, fine. They do not seem noteworthy though. Anyone can write a book and start a ministry.

• As for "authors of countless books"... James McGowan one book and a link to his ministry. You created it. Zero edits. No discussion on the page. Education from an unaccredited school. (Maybe these facts will change by socket puppets after this is posted.) On the other pages listed (besides the "countless" one book of McGowan) many of those sound like pamphlets, not books. Even if they are books, so what? Being an obscure author does not make one notable anymore than starring in obscure national pornography makes one notable.
• Couting all the books on Mike Randall's page is zero, not "countless." No sources, no links. A claim to an unaccredited school. But then again even that isn't cited. There are four edits, which include the creation by Gastrich (he made three). The edit not done by Gastrich was deleted by him, which included the phrase "considered a diploma mill." Yeah, and he asks we "assume good faith" and says "noting that I created some of these pages is inconsequential."

• You're quite right to point out that, when it comes to assuming "good faith" on the part of Jason Gastrich, well, that ship has sailed. It's been pretty well established that he's here to push a specific POV--his. One need look no farther than his user page and his current talk page entries to see that. He claims he founded the "wiki4christ" domain to insure that Christians have a voice at Misplaced Pages...at least, that's his claim. (Of course, Wiki was around long before Gastrich ever heard of it and there are lots of Christians posting and editing--a few are even administrators. Of course, they're not all Gastrich's kind of "Christian," fortunately for the rest of us.) And if you check his talk page, there's a bit of discussion about the distinctions with respect to "Christian rock," and some comments and entries about that that were, apparently, not to Gastrich's liking. His response to the party whom he addressed on his talk page was to tell him that the artists in question qualify under "Christian rock." No other explanation was given, so the obvious implication is that they are so because Gastrich has said they are so, just as, below, he tells us that the parties he lists are "certifiably notable." Why? Because he says so. It really boils down to that.

• I couldn't help but chuckle at Gastrich tooting his own horn, so to speak, about he's "helped the community" and takes his time to do so. Yes, how lovely for the rest of us to be given just a glimpse of Gastrich's golden prose and how he has given us so much of his valuable time (mostly categorizing people as "christian" this or "atheist" that). Thinking of the sacrifices he must have made almost brings a tear to my "aged" eye.

• You criticisms of this silly list are also dead on the money. Gastrich's intent with the list of "notable" alumni is to pad the list in an attempt to do what he's been doing with this article all along--sell the school and mute or obscure legitimate criticism of it. And, of course, we are again regaled with claim after claim about these "notables," claims that usually result in demands from Gastrich for "proof" or "citations" were they to be made about someone with whom he doesn't agree. Take Mal Couch, whom, Gastrich claims, is listed in the "Who's Who of Professionals." And what's Gastrich's source for that? He doesn't say.

• As you have also noted, there's nothing special about publishing books and, as usual, Gastrich exaggerates just a bit. I'm very sure we can count the number of books published, even if we count those published by conservative or fundamentalist organs, which I know, from experience, aren't very discerning when it comes to what is good enough to publish and what is not. I was a Christian for quite a while and even had a close friendship with two Christian book store owners in the east county, San Diego, area. As a result, I had frequent occasion to read quite a bit of what was being published, and "wretched" would not be too strong a word to describe a great deal of it. It's no wonder so many of these Christian "authors" must use the smaller, more sectarian publishers. No self-respecting secular house would bother with most of it. At any rate, it's no trick to get published, especially these days, with all of the small, publishing houses and the many ways to self-publish. A publication record does not make one noteworthy. I suspect that Gastrich would tell you, in another argument, that he's published either three or six books (depending on how disingenous he might want to be in counting each "edition" of the rather pathetic SABCE as a separate book, or if they all constitute one "book"). He thinks that was important enough to make him "noteworthy" and of enough importance to have his own biographical entry in Misplaced Pages, so maybe it's not surprising the he'd make noises about the publication records of these "noteworthy" alumni.

• My first impulse is to consider that Missler and Baugh should remain. They are well-known enough (and the latter is notorious enough) outside of the small "Christian" circle that Gastrich inhabits. The rest can probably go. Misplaced Pages is not required to indulge Gastrich's hero worship. WarriorScribe 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll ignore your ad hominem attacks, but I will note that I don't use sockpuppets any longer.
• Mike Randall is the President of Baptist_Bible_College_-_Springfield,_Missouri.
• James McGowan is a professor, pastor, and author.
• Those facts make those people certifiably notable. --Jason Gastrich 06:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, Gastrich has convinced me. The whole list should go. Normally, when we're speaking of an article about a more noteworthy university (e.g., Harvard, Yale, USC, even some of the larger seminaries), we tend to speak of "noteworthy alumni" in a much greater societal context. But in this case, we're talking about a minority view even within a minority view, as it were. We're talking about people whom Gastrich thinks are noteworthy, within the relatively small microcosm of the born-again, Christian community. In light of the greater scheme of things, none on the list are noteworthy, except to Gastrich and those thankfully few whom "think" as he does. WarriorScribe 07:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the deletion.

It was deleted after a LBU page was found on famous alumni. A link was added under "links" for interested parties to read about alumni.

Notable alumni section

It's very common for colleges and universities on Misplaced Pages to have a list of notable alumni. Since all of the people mentioned are notable (e.g. they have a Misplaced Pages entry), they should remain on the page. --Jason Gastrich 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite clearly, the presence of a Misplaced Pages entry is not enough to determine notability, and the argument is disingenuous if only because many of the entries were written by the person (above) who then wants to claim that the presence of those articles make that person noteworthy. Other institutions list noteworthy alumni, but that point was already addressed, above. Tag Gastich with 1 revert. WarriorScribe 22:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Make that two reverts (that included a pretty hysterical "because I said so" kind of comment). Noteworthiness is not determined by a unilateral declaration of a single, POV-pushing individual, but some degree of concensus. WarriorScribe 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is common to have alumni who have made national press or routinely make national press on a Misplaced Pages article. Such as a best selling author, a famous Hollywood actor, a disease curing doctor, and a state or national politician. There are none of these people in here though. These are "obscure" "authors" who, assuming they have relevance, are relevant only as what Warrior said, as a minority in a minority.

If the list should be revised, demonstrate that these people are notable. IE, Mainstream press articles, NY Times best selling lists, ect... Your claim that these people are notable is POV unless you cite otherwise. Having a internet site and a book sold on that website is not enough.

• For the record, let's note that there has been no attempt to show that the parties listed are notable. WarriorScribe 23:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, all PhD graduates are authors by definition because they go into research and offer that research later in book form. Many get their research published by academic and mainstream publishers. Yet, not all PhD grads/authors are notable in this regard as an authorship.

As warrior said, explain how these peole are notable in a societal context. Please provide sources.

• If people agree, nominate the above pages for deletion. They fail to meet Misplaced Pages biographical standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies#People_still_alive

• Indeed, as they are clearly POV-based articles and the noteworthiness of each individual is in question, it would appear that we should start going through weeding some of this out. WarriorScribe 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Countless universities list notable alumni. Listing them is within Misplaced Pages's rules. Therefore, they should be listed. If you don't think one is notable, then nominate for deletion. While they have an entry, they are notable. --Jason Gastrich 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Be careful what you ask for. I would add that I think there are degrees of notability. One might be notable enough to be in[REDACTED] but that does not necessarily imply they are notable alumni. For example, would Mark K. Bilbo be a notable alumni from XX University? Maybe, maybe not. Is he notable enough for wikipedia? Obviously. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would also point out what I've pointed out, already. Notability is not determined by the rantings of a single, hero-worshipping, POV-pushing Jason Gastrich. It is determined by concensus. Even the "notables" listed on other college pages (and not all have been examined and are, therefore, approved by concensus, either, so that's an open and unresolved issue, as well). The fact is that if we allow just anyone to post a "notable" alumnus by unrestricted standards, as you illustrate, Mark, we can all just start fillng up university pages with lists of alumni. The list will be removed, again, with Gastrich's third reversion so noted. WarriorScribe 23:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've returned the alumni that i believe might be notable enough to warrant inclusion. i have removed the unknowns. What do others think of the spin off list at List of Louisiana Baptist University people? This seems to fit into the wp:not category of indiscriminent facts. David D. (Talk) 12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. There are only two that fit a wider context noterity in Christian and mainstream culture: Carl Baugh and Bill Gothard. And not for "notable" reasons. There is already a link to LBU's page listing proud alumni. If the reader wants to know the alumni they can go there. Or less, people like Gothard are going to mentioned mainly because he made the press with two sex scandals. This stuff is filler and has no relevance to the school itself. Keep in mind that is what the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs)

• It's useless information, meant to extend Gastrich's agenda of making sure that "Christians" (def., "Christians" like Gastrich) "have a voice at Misplaced Pages." LBU is not a notable institution and the presence of an article about it is questionable enough. WarriorScribe 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• None of those on the alumni list are notable (except to an extremely small microcosm of society) and Gastrich has yet to make a case that they are or that their inclusion is anything other than "hero worship." It would appear that Gastrich never got past the "baby Christian" phase of his "walk." During that period, when it is clear that there really is no evidence of intervention in the lives of others by Jesus or God, "baby Christians" and those very immature in the faith tend to lean on and idolize ministers, evangelists, even creation "scientists," in other words, people--at least, these can be seen, heard, and read, and they validate what the "baby Christian" has chosen to believe. What little argument he's tried to present for the inclusion of this list and these alumni has been exposed as vacuous and superficial, and "because I say so" isn't good enough. Once again, we see that Gastrich is more interested in quantity than quality, as well. WarriorScribe 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, took a closer look at the articles about these "notables" and they are loaded with POV-pushing commentary...they almost read like sales pitches. They are going to need lots of editing, and that's assuming we should even bother and shouldn't have them removed, altogether. We should thank Gastrich for bringing these articles to our attention. WarriorScribe 17:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• If they have a Misplaced Pages page, then they are notable. I'm returning the other alumni to the list, now. Just because you think they're "unknowns" doesn't mean they are.

The LBU list of people is like any other university list of people; certainly pertinent and informative. --Jason Gastrich 15:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is ridiculous to say that because they are in[REDACTED] they are notable. Did you forget that anyone can edit wikipedia? Also a list of unnotable people is not pertinent information. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The following pages should be deleted they do not meet Misplaced Pages crtieria:

Greg Baker (Created by Gastrich) (Two links to his church, no sources)

Daniel Dorim Kim (Created by Gastrich) (List of his education and churches, no sources)

John Moseley (Created by Gastrich) (Two books of unknown noterairty, one plug for his church)

Mike Randall (Created by Gastrich) (No sources, no links)

James McGowan (Created by Gastrich) (One book with no indication of sales, one link to ministry, no sources)

Charles Pack (Created by Gastrich) (Editor of small magazine, one link, no sources)

Bob Cornuke (Six books of unknown readership, no sources)

Jimmy DeYoung (A mention of a “sought after speaker,” no books, no sources)

Thomas Ice (Created by Gastrich) (A long list of books of questionable readership, no sources, one plug to buy those books)

Grant Jeffrey (Created by Gastrich) (A longer list of books no readership available, no sources, one plug to buy those books)

Chuck Missler (Created by Gastrich) (12 books, 5 videos, no audience numbers, 4 plugs to buy those works, no objective sources)

James Combs (Created by Gastrich) (No books, no sources, one link to LBU)

Neal Weaver (Created by Gastrich) (No books, no sources, one link to LBU)

List of LBU People (Created by Gastrich)

As noted before, these people do not meet the criteria for Misplaced Pages living person’s biographies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies#People_still_alive ). Unless Gastrich can demonstrate how with citations, as he has repeatedly refused. For example Misplaced Pages expects an author to sell at least 5,000 copies of a book. Also explained before, Good faith with Gastrich has been thrown out the window because of talk pages like this. It’s time to prove it, if and only if the pages are kept.

By the way, why are “guest speakers” on an alumin page? POV maybe?

As for the section, if Alumni is going to be kept: “Notable Alumni” should be changed to “Alumni” and the list should be shrunk to:

Carl Baugh

Bill Gothard The two sex scandals make him a noterious figure, but not “notable.” As well his fascistic views.

Do not keep the list.

If the list of Misplaced Pages alumni exists it is to the detriment of LBU and becomes POV. If people like Gothard are on the list it is because of contraversy caused by sex scandals. At which point it does nothing to benefit the article on LOUISIANA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY.

There is a link under external links if people wish to read a LBU POV alumni list. If the Misplaced Pages/Gastrich list is kept the link should be deleted because the alumni link is on the home page for interest parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs)

• All of this nonsense with respect to the "alumni" additions is clearly a result of Gastrich's POV-driven, all-or-nothing approach, which we've noted above. Evidence that Gastrich is unable to accept his errors and mistakes, and is lacking in morals or maturity, may be found everywhere from Usenet and the examples in his stolen-domain names and other activities, so easily referenced by anyone who wants to look. A complete report has been put together and the finishing touches should be completed this weekend, after which it will be submitted to Jimmy Wales. If anyone has anything that they think should be added, see me at my talk page. WarriorScribe 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Are the sex scandals mentioned in the Bill Gothard page, if not its POV. If all these pages read like sales pitches then they should either be heavily edited or take the easier route of AfD, unless people think they are worth salvaging? It is up to the creator to make sure that articles are NPOV it is not the duty of the community to clean up POV articles of minor figures in the religious community. So I am fine with AfD unless these articles improve dramaticallty in the near future. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Recent revert comments referred to those replacing the whole list, not DayCD. Encouraging dialouge instead of reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs)

• Take a look at the Bob Cornuke article, check the history and compare what was there with my changes to make it less POV, and tell me if that's what you have in mind. WarriorScribe 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• You copy edits on Bob Cornuke look pretty good. I don't think that is AfD material. David D. (Talk) 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• And part of the point is that I really don't think Cornuke merits an encyclopedia article, but there is a way to write about him without pushing a POV, and that article illustrates that way, versus what was there before. Those of us whom have engaged in investigations and have had to write reports, including reports that will stand up in court and therefore cannot be POV-driven , understand that. WarriorScribe 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see nothing to keep from the list above. If you all disagree, post the name(s) of who is Wiki worthy to discuss this. All I read on these is a used car salemen maming a pitch. I recommend AfD for the list directly above.

• I agree that most should go. At least 75%. David D. (Talk) 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I see no need to have the list there. It's fluff--an attempt to "sell" the school. There are quite a few schools that have articles at Wiki that do not list "notable alumni," including all of the schools from which I received degrees (and all are well-known, well-established schools), so it's a bit much for us to buy into the idea that there are "countless" schools listing alumni, and I've already addressed the issue of notability. Notability is not determined by a single, hero-worshipping, POV-pushing baby Christian. Notability is determined by concensus, which is usually arrived at because the "notable person" has engaged in some activity that has proven exceptional. When it gets right down to it, examining the parties named, there really isn't much that's even significant, let alone exceptional. I don't have a problem with leaving the list off. It's up to Gastrich, anyway, to explain just any of these people are notable, and the inclusion of articles on an open encyclopedia, especially when Gastrich wrote many of the articles so vaguely references is hardly compelling. WarriorScribe 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Only one of my schools has a alumni list, which has only a hand full of names, mostly famous writers. My other schools, which is known for having many famous bestselling authors, a few famous news commentators, and a few politicians does not. By the way, my schools have accredation and have more than one building as the campus unlike LBU.

• Understood. It would be easy for me to go to the articles for the schools from which I graduated and list people whom I know whom have started businesses, written books, composed music...hell, I cut two record albums in the late 70s and early 80s...I could list me under that kind of criteria if it were mor...uuuuhhhh...wait a minute...

• ...you don't suppose this is all a lead-in so that Gsstrich could, upon completion of what can only be laughingly called a "Ph.D." in May, come back to the article, and on the strength of a published "book" (in four editions), another "book" that is little more than a pamphlet (I got my hands on a copy just recently) and a "study guide," list himself as a "notable alumnus," complete with yet another advertising for web sites, "lectures," "debates" and "books?" Hmmm...the plot thickens... WarriorScribe 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Also no Wiki school entry lists the speakers, bands, or guest professors like this page does. If universities did, then the vast majority would have a list so immense that it serves no purpose. The fact that Falwell is on there as a "notable" event, months before it even happens really shows something about this.

• Falwell addressing the event at LBU is admittedly notable, but again, only to the institution and those interested in it, which must still be, as I said, a "minority within a minority." What has happened here is precisely what I thought would if you allow even a little on these articles. Gastrich is, with respect to his development, still very much an adolescent, used to getting his own way, and often over-pampered and over-indulged. So we grant a little, and he demands more. We grant that Falwell visiting and giving the commencement address is worthy of note, and suddenly, or we grant that some part of Governor Blanco's citation should be quoted (I didn't do that to capitulate, but to make a point that appears to be supported, now), and the next thing you know, we're not only expected to grant an alumni list on the page, but to accept, without question, that these are "notable alumni" by criteria that Gastrich gets to define, i.e., that they have a page on Misplaced Pages. See what's happening here? It's all intended to build the case and present it to those with the ability to do what needs to be done. WarriorScribe 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich should be banned from Misplaced Pages

Thoughts?

Well, I guess I'm wondering what the heck is going on here. We have 207.200.116.10 taking out comments, calling them POV pushing, putting the comments back in, telling Gastrich to deal with it, and then the comments are taken out, again as POV pushing. As Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would say, "reveal yourself," 207.200.116.10! WarriorScribe 04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Warrior, check this out: http://www.durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html

Bill's page is well known to me. WarriorScribe 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, given the behavior, yes, it's pretty clear that Wiki could to better without someone like Gastrich around. WarriorScribe 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Wimbleton, Batman! WarriorScribe 04:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich's newewst removal.

Gastrich's distaste for actual education in his POV has kept the following off.

Diploma mill

Some assert that LBU is really a diploma mill, as defined by the US Department of Education. First, one sign that a school might be a diploma mill is the "chosen university is accredited, but not by an agency recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA )". Louisiana Baptist University and the Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools are not listed by CHEA . Nor is the school listed as a charity . Wherefore, making it an unaccredited school. Secondly, the Department warned to "beware of institutions that offer college credit and degrees based on life experience, with little or no documentation of prior learning" as a sign of a suspect school. LBU does this very point, when they "take into account past professional experience and present occupational learning opportunities as we provide the academic courses for a unique educational experience."

Dissertations

Unlike accredited schools and even many that are not accredited, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. At accredited schools, a master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and doctoral dissertations are obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is required to be deposited in the United States Library of Congress (LOC), where it is made available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. (Since 1940, all accredited universities in the United States have deposited dissertations in the LOC . The practice began in 1870, and many dissertations have been available online from the LOC since 1997 .). Yet, due to the fact that LBU policy does not require these standard practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction.

In comparison, the Harvard Divinity School, for the Doctor of Theology degree, requires that, "once sustained by the Committee, the original dissertation and the first copy, in bound form, together with their abstracts and an unbound, boxed copy for University Microfilms International (UMI), should be submitted to the registrar." As noted on the Library of Congress webpage, since 1999, the UMI has submitted dissertations to the Library of Congress, which are then available for download online .

• Who, here, believes with me that Gastrich has gotten himself an account at AOL, so he can revert comments anonymously and not be caught by the 3RR rule, and now finds himself in a revert and edit war with another user of AOL from the same area? I can't tell you how amusing that is! WarriorScribe 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The commentary on the 04:23 revert by 207.200.116.10 clearly is Gastrich. Gastrich is using an AOL account to get around the 3RR. Meanwhile, it appears that another AOL user is also on that address, perhaps there's some reporting error at Wiki? WarriorScribe 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sarine? David D. (Talk) 05:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• No idea. WarriorScribe 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• You can tell that over at the SAB article as well.

• Does it get any more bizarre (and entertaining) as this? WarriorScribe 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't it interesting, though, that we stop hearing from Gastrich and seeing him do edits (right about when he'd get nailed for violating 3RR, for one thing), and we suddenly see an anonymous IP poster from AOL, using language very similar to Gastrich's and engaging in very similar reverts and taking issue with the same things? WarriorScribe 04:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

He'll be at it again. http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15146.htm

Interesting. WarriorScribe 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's probably time someone charges 207.200.116.10 with violation of 3RR. WarriorScribe 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And schizophrenia. David D. (Talk) 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Page is locked until concensus can be reached

It seems to me that more rational minds here can come to some sort of standard of concensus with respect to notability of alumni. I will say, again, that we can't just arbitrarily decide what is notable and what is not, or that standard can spill across all of the college pages on Misplaced Pages and the lists will become unwieldy. As it is, Wiki seems to have some standards, most of which are not met by those Gastrich insisted on listing.

Meanwhile, the deletion of the diploma mill commentary was definitely out of line. Like it or not, it's a factor in the history of LBU and should be addressed. Wiki is not a sales platform for Gastrich or any other alumni of any other college. Hell, not too long ago, I went to the Pikes Peak Community College article and de-POV'd it a bit, and it's the first place that awarded me a post-high school degree. I have fond memories of PPCC, but that doesn't mean I can't see past that and make the article more POV. At any rate, encyclopedias are not about hiding stuff some of us might not like. LBU has had to deal with the issue, and it should be in the article. WarriorScribe 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about protected entry

LBU cannot be considered a diploma mill by any conceivable stretch of the imagination. It's a fabrication from one man and his one or two friends. The university:

1. Has 1100+ students

2. Has numerous faculty

3. Has a physical campus and a library

4. Has Jerry Falwell coming to speak at graduation (the biggest name in fundamentalist Christianity frequently speaks at diploma mills, just kidding)

5. Has numerous distinguished alumni

6. Has vigorous degree, course, and writing requirements

7. Has lengthy writing requirements for theses and dissertations

8. Was founded in 1973

9. Does not meet Wiki's standards for a diploma mill

The statement that LBU is a diploma mill has not been given by any reputable or professional source. It is simply the assertion of WarriorScribe and a couple of his cohorts; even worse than "personal research". More like a personal witchhunt.

The entry needs to include all of the alumni that are notable. If they have a Wiki entry, then they're notable. Plus, the entry needs the link to the List of LBU people. --207.200.116.6 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)