Talk:Covenant College/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

This article reads like advertising pamphlet for Covenant College. I'm thinking especially of the Faculty and Alumni sections. It would be nice with examples and sources to back up the claims of excellency. Or a rewrite by someone knowledgeable about the school. Abelsson 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed an edit that was advertising an on-campus restaurant. Answerthis 00:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

An anon has significantly repaired the article. I deleted the POV-check since it seems much more conformant to WP standards. --Flex 14:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic content?

Please give specific citations & reasons for why content/citation is considered non-encyclopedic when you remove an edit. --Qmax 2 October 2006

I deleted the material you added to Covenant College because it seemed non-notable (cf. WP:N and WP:NOT). Why is the removal of asbestos worthy of mention in an encyclopedia? Perhaps the bit about the coach resigning would fit, but it seems like small potatoes to me. Why is it of interest to the world at large? What was the nature of the "controversy"? Etc. --Flex 19:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One might wonder why Covenant College is interesting to the world at large, no? The Carter Hall renovation was an important milestone in the history of the building. I hope to expand that section of the CC entry; as it stands now the history is incomplete, and I plan on digging up some old newspaper articles and books that I have which mention it.

The same thing goes for the Athletics section (and really the entire entry as a whole). Right now it reads as a basic excerpt from some admissions piece. Qmax 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Covenant College obviously fits WP:SCHOOL and so qualifies for inclusion. It may currently sound like an excerpt from the student handbook, but that should be corrected. All contributions are welcome to that end, but I still question the notability of removal of asbestos. Does that portion even meet the verifiability criterion (WP:V) as referenced in WP:N: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources" (emphasis mine)? (PS, let's put all the discussion here to make it easier to follow. Also, it's customary to put new discussion at the bottom of talk pages rather than the top.) --Flex 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I was being ironical. You're right to point out that it needs more citations, which I believe I've read elsewhere, including the official news section of the Covenant website. A couple of the entries feature quotations themselves of what appears to be offical College correspondence (one even has a link). I can see why it may seem odd, but not outside of the bounds of [[WP:N] Qmax 21:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The only way I see the removal of asbestos as worthy of note here is if it were of some sort of architectural or historical significance (e.g., because someone sued the school over cancer caused by that asbestos). Just because a link or two exist describing something does not mean it belongs in the Wikipedia (the multiple source part of the policy on verifiability is only the first criterion for notability, after all). --Flex 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

Rather than engaging in an edit war, Qmax, let's figure out what links belong on this page according to WP:EL. First, I maintain that blogs should not be linked to except where they are mandated by the subject of the article (see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #7). This seems clear cut to me since this article does not mandate linking to an unofficial blog portal. Second, there doesn't appear to be any good reason to me for linking to the 50th anniversary website or the Scots radio, neither of which are mentioned at all in the article. These two could be relevant if they were more connected to the content of the article, but at present they seem extraneous. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that we should discus is here. The difficulty seems to be in the understanding of what constitutes a link being mandated by the article. My contention would be that since the article is about Covenant College, then the article mandates external links to relevant sites, even "unofficial" sites (which I'm sure you'll agree are not unacceptable in principle or WP:EL). Scots Radio, 50th Anniversary, Covblogs, etc. are all important and significant sites related to Covenant College wherein interested parties receive communication from the entity discussed in this article and/or discuss, communicate, and interact with the subject of this article.

In terms of the linking to blogs, I wholeheartedly agree that they should generally be avoided. The link to Covblogs is a link to a notable, purely Covenant College related collection of blogs and not a specific blog. Qmax

I agree with Flex. As regards covblogs, we generally avoid linking to directories or forums (unless the article is about a directory, such as Yellow Pages), and a blog aggregator turns out to be a combination of both. I don't doubt that the portals are significant, but an encyclopedia article is not about helping the readers communicate with college officials and members, so the links section is about linking readers to find additional facts–it is not a phone book. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not opposed in principle to Scots Radio or the 50th Anniversary site. There is just not direct connection for them in the article, and they are available by going through the main Covenant site. Hroðulf and I are of one mind when it comes to the blog aggregator. If you still disagree, we can seek a third opinion. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically Covblogs is more than simply an aggregator, it also hosts blogs for Covenant students and alumni. It's also important to note that the site only includes people who are associated with Covenant College i.e. the subject of the wikipedia article is the defining characteristic of the site/link in question. That said, I'm down for a third opinion. Qmax 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, that is not mandated by the article. If this were an article about a blogger, then his/her would be mandated. This is an article about a college, and you are suggesting that an unofficial blog portal is mandated. I simply don't see how that can be. If you still disagree, we can file an RfC as suggested below. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion (as an example), what would it look like for the article in question to mandate the link in question? It's intuitive to us that there is a connection, but I can understand your position that it isn't mandated. I'd like to know what you think the converse would look like. Qmax 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Picking a few bloggers at semi-random, see Douglas Wilson (theologian), Derek Wall, or Andrew Sullivan. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful, but you're talking about individuals and their personal blogs. Would you feel that say, a blog like the Gothamist, should not be associated with New York City? Is the concept of mandate one-directional? Qmax 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I read the guidelines, and I don't find a link the Gothamist in NYC. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, WP:EL has been updated. The guideline concerning blogs now reads: "[Avoid] [l]inks to blogs, except those written by a recognized authority." This doesn't change the nature of my objection, however, and the final guideline in that section says we are to avoid linking sites "that are only indirectly related to the article's subject." That seems to apply directly here: an unofficial blog portal is not appropriate. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

Unfortunately, a third opinion is only a valid resolution when only two contributors have been involved in the debate-this would be a fourth opinion and so is not really covered. If you really need more input you may consider procedures such as RfC, but it seems those involved are doing quite a good job of civilly resolving the dispute as is. :) Seraphimblade 14:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Can we get a third opinion on a third opinion. ;) Qmax 20:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Covblogs link seems to be pretty clearly prohibited under WP:EL point 11. Anyway, it can easily be found on a Google search. Evan Donovan 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not if you consider alumni an authority. The reworking of WP:EL seems to support the link even more. Qmax 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Any given alumnus or alumna is not a recognized authority in se. The blog portal is therefore not appropriate, and in fact, I think the reworking makes it more clear that it should not be linked here. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly debatable, nor is the assertion found in or derived from WP:EL. The larger the number of alumni involved the more dubious claims of non-authority seem. Qmax 06:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation issue

The information in the accreditation section is too detailed for a WP article, in my opinion. Not to mention that it's time-bound, and has now become out of date. As soon as I can find out if there's newer information, I'm going to replace that section with a summary. Evan Donovan 06:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

They're suppose to put out an official release in January. Qmax 23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. Maybe the section can be shortened then - as I hope for other reasons, as well :) Evan Donovan 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a dispute (see comments above) about whether Covenant College Blogs, the "Unofficial Covenant College Blog Portal," should be included in the external links under WP:EL. 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be that such a site does little to add to the content of the article so should not be included. As previously mentioned,this falls under WP:EL 11. Adambro 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to the RfC. Based on reading the article, and the comments here, as well as familiarity with the WP:EL policy, I have to say that the blogs link does not offer value to the article. Generally there thre should be no, or few external links in an article. I don't see why the blog site is exceptional enough to be an exception to this. Atom 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

News

I think the entire "news" section should be stricken from this article. It makes the college look both academically iffy (accreditation) and fundamentalist (SoulForce). Neither are true, are they? I heard there are faculty members getting books published from university presses, students and faculty members pulling down Fulbright scholarships, and a lot of interesting things happening. I'm not saying these things should be in here instead. I just wonder why a news section contributes substantively to a wiki about the institution; especially one that gives a skewed impression. Why not strike the news section and give a well-written depiction of the school would help an outsider know what its all about? Hedgehogfox 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not everything that has been published in reliable sources needs to show up here, but apparently User:Qmax disagrees. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I say everything published in reliable sources needs to show up? As always, it's about notability. Further, most of the content in the news section is consistent with the Wiki University/College project and other college/university pages. Qmax 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did overstate your claim a bit. Sorry bout that. But, I still don't think that these issues are particularly notable, at least in the amount of text that they're given (cf. WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Also, I don't see anything about news items on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. What are you thinking of specifically? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can almost see your point on undue weight. It seems to me that NPOV:Undue Weight is more about providing a comprehensive and fair perspective on a given issue. Are you saying that because there isn't an equivalent more positive (I guess assuming the "news" section largely contains negative things) the article suffers from NPOV? I'm not sure that's how NPOV:Undue Weight works. If you look under the wikipedia universities project you'll see a number of universities and colleges listed as excellent examples of how to structure a college/university wikipedia page; many include controversies, news, and notable events sections. Qmax 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that these items are given a goodly amount of text to highlight minor and mostly negative aspects of the school. It is, I think, not neutral by the selection of material and the amount of text devoted to the items relative to the length of the article. I looked at the first four articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities#Featured_articles, which should be some of their best work, and there is no news section of this kind. Moreover, their article structure has no obvious place for such things. Give me some specific examples of this in other (preferably high quality) articles. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that there might be some discussion about the amount of text given to the issues and I certainly have no problem with their shortening (as long at it treats the issues fairly). Whether or not they're "negative" or "minor" isn't the point, it's whether or not they're notable. According to the standards of WP:N they are (multiple independent & reliable sources, the obvious notability of an issue with accredation aside). My suggestion would be that they move into the History section of the article, as thats' where content of this kind most often appears in other similar articles (UVA, UT, MIT, etc.), though Cambridge scatters their throughout in sections like Academics and IIT Miscellaneous, and IIT puts theirs in "controversies". While notable, neither Accredation or Soulforce issues/events seem like controversies or even scandals, so again, it seems best they be moved into the history of the College section. Qmax 16:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Flex has repeated my initial concern. I'm not so worried about whether the news is positive or negative (though I am a little suspicious by what shows up here) than I am about whether it actually matters that much. If we're going for "notable" then I think the items listed on the entry don't warrant much attention. Simply because something grabs the attention of the local news doesn't make it "notable." I'd rather see a more substantive article and a removal of the news section, which, by the way, is always going to make the entry seem pretty dated. Is anyone else in favor of simply removing the news section, good and bad? Hedgehogfox 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't tied to whether the sources are local or not (though note that some are outside of Chattanooga and/or Dade County). Notability is largely established by the sources being reliable and independent. Which in this case (or cases), they are. Qmax 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The notability criteria are concerned with the existence of articles, not the content of articles (see WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content). The question here is of significance (cf. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information) and, to a lesser extent, of neutrality. I would say the accreditation bit should be incorporated in the academics section in a much-redacted form, whereas the bit about the SoulForce activists seems to have been covered only locally and by those with a vested interest in gay rights, which to me makes it a parochial issue that isn't particularly significant to the content of this article (every group with a beef against this school doesn't deserve a spotlight for airing their grievance here; cf. WP:NPOV#Undue weight). I'll try to look at those other articles you mention later. (PS, I indented this conversation by speaker, since there aren't multiple threads going on.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that we shouldn't use notability guidelines to limit content, and I'm certainly glad you're not arguing otherwise. How does the content under "news" fall underneath the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" guidelines? Given the citations (both local and national) and the importance of an institutions accredation, I don't see how that information is indiscriminate. Further, simply because the information may be construed as negative does not bring it under question of neutrality (as you well know). It seems to me you're questioning (with no grounds or evidence, at least stated) the neutrality of the sources listed (all established and reliable newspapers), which, while an interesting political conversation is a level of skepticism (i.e. questioning the neutrality of newspapers) that's going to lead to a serious mess on wikipedia. So, I again, I can see precedent for moving the content into different sections, but thus far the complaints seem to amount to "the content is negative" and "we can't trust newspapers". Qmax 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problems of this content's notability are highlighted when we consider the prospect of moving the material into other sections, which, if it's to be included at all, I think should happen. In this institution's fifty year history, does a four hour visit by a group of protesters warrant a mention? In a complete historical survey, perhaps a footnote. In an encyclopedic reference? I kind of doubt it. It's not a question of neutrality or negativity but notability. Hedgehogfox 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it's about notability, which is why we have standards like independent sources/media coverage, and we have two in this situation, including an official statement from the College on the matter. In specific terms, the accredation of the college seems like something very important, no? Qmax 16:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation section issues

It's clear the content about Covenant's accreditation needs to be discussed and solved to avoid any edit wars. It seems the issue and its resolution need to be noted by the higher ed source already listed; how much additional information is really relevant to the larger article is the question. Any comments? Flowanda | Talk 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I received no response from those involved in this discussion, I am asking for a request for comment so the article can receive the benefit of more outside eyes looking at its content. Flowanda | Talk 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you had read above, you would have seen that the issue has been discussed ad nauseum. Qmax 03:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did read *all* discussions and *every* edit from several months back before I made my edits. You reverted edits without any respect or acknowledgment of existing discussion or issues made on this talk page -- until I filed either a request for comment or third party opinion. Please explain why you think your comments posted on your personal blogs hosted by the company you co-own should be considered a newsworthy source on such a serious subject as a college accreditation. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 07:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue was discussed ad nauseum, yes, and there seemed to be a two to one decision in favor of removing the content deemed non-notable. I waited a time until there seemed to be no further discussion and then removed the non-notable content. I agree with Flowanda that you've engaged in an editing war by putting the stuff back with no comment. I would like to remove the items again, but would like to resolve this rather than continuing to fight about it. Hedgehogfox 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The content/edits in question need to be judged on their own merits and whether or not they conform to wikipedia's standards (nevermind that my personal associations as a hosting provider to a service that hosts the site in question has nothing to do with the actual content of those sites). As I've argued before, the site in question contains official statements from Covenant College about noteworthy (as in reported on by multiple independent news sources) information that is consistent with the content appearing in equivalent articles. How is this not the case? Qmax 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues related to this issue, but I included the connections to your blog because you list Covenant College as a client on your company's website, and the posts on your blog contain references to this and other clients on a regular basis. If the accreditation info you link to on your blog are official statements, are you quoting from the college's official website, commenting on them from a personal basis, or releasing it as a official representative? If there are multiple independent news sources containing equivalent information, then why not link to them directly? Flowanda | Talk 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The statements linked to on my blog were sent in an e-mail to college alumni, faculty, and staff. The College is/was a client, but you certainly couldn't accuse me of being biased in any way (see my most recent blog post). Again, none of this is the point, the issue is whether or not the edits (not the author) are noteworthy. Given the articles from SACS, Inside Higher Ed, AND an official statement from the College on the matter, I'd say the content is noteworthy. Qmax 03:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless the contents of the email were reported on by a news source and can be sourced per WP:RS, they should be removed. Verifiability is what Wikipedia bases its content on. As it is now, I can't find any official release even on the Covenant website, which makes the content a personal email published on a self-published blog. Flowanda | Talk 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to Qmax's edit made in the News section above. Saying you have the same standards as a news source is not the same as being a news source. I assert that your blog is not a WP:RS for the reasons I stated above. The Chattablogs portal was deemed non-notable during a AfD a few monthgs ago, and individual blogs on your covenant portal were also deemed non-notable in previous discussions on this page. And a statement is not official -- or notable (per Wikipedia's definition) -- until it's verified as an official statement -- the mostly likely place an official statement would be found would be on the college's website, but I can't find it. You mention multiple sources; if the official statement is published elsewhere, why fight for this one source? And if an official statement can only be found online or published on your blog, why? Flowanda | Talk 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a substantive complaint, and I appreciate that you're no longer questioning whether or not the content in question is notable, but instead are concerned with a particular source. If you'd like, I can produce the e-mail in which I was sent that information (nevermind that there is all kinds of official college information distributed that does not appear on the website, like what's in The View). The issue then is: "can a general unacceptable source like a blog be cited if it contains an official, notable piece of content?" I'm not sure what I think about that, it's kind of tricky, and it'll be interesting to see what the greater Wikipedia community thinks. Qmax 04:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're agreeing, then the gremlins zapped more than just my modem and keyboard (joke: see my user page about my house woes). Including relative info/quote from the college's public response would certainly be appropriate if the info is ultimately kept in the article, but I don't think emails are considered public or notable (according to wikipedia's policy), unless they're reported on (and usually noted as an email, who sent it, and who the recipients were) as part of published news articles. I think it would have been quicker to say...nothing's notable until it's been published by an easily referenced (i.e. available to all) reliable source. Flowanda | Talk 02:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Emails are not notable, esp. since we don't have any way of verifying their content. To print private emails would go against journalistic best practices; in fact, some might say it constitutes "irresponsible journalism." I happen to have a blog on the Covblogs portal; however, I don't believe that any of the discussions going on there currently should be noted in WP. If anything should be noted in WP, it should be the recognition as one of the nation's prettiest campuses, etc., since that appeared in a national news source.

That said, I do believe that Qmax's recent edits have been more responsible than previous ones. Evan Donovan 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure verification (of the e-mail) is the issue, given that notability is established by "trusted" sources (which I realize that a blog, most often times, is not). Is an e-mail from the College about a notable subject a trusted source? The sources for many newspaper articles are e-mails, and as I recall, you too received the e-mail in question, and it's certainly not against any journalistic standard to print any communication between an individual and a reporter unless a. the individual asks to be "off the record" and b. the recipient doesn't inform the speaker that he/she is a reporter. The e-mail in question was sent to alumni, faculty, and staff in response to a notable incident. I can reproduce it if needs be. Also agreed that the "nations prettiest campus" should appear in a news section, along with any other content that would be considered notable (like the SACS warning and Soulforce visit). Qmax 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah - if you're referring simply to the SACS email, then I agree with you, in re: journalistic practice in general. I don't know if quoting it would be considered to be "original research," though, under WP rules. I'm not familiar enough with their policies to speak to that.

Ideally, I think we should have a balanced section on news - something like, two sentences about SACS, a sentence about SoulForce, and a few sentences about recent recognition in national publications. Some information on the faculty & their recent projects might be good also.

Also, Qmax, do you have access to any photos of the college that you would be willing to license under the GFDL for posting in the WP? A photo of Carter Hall esp. would be nice. Evan Donovan 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (didn't realize I wasn't logged in at first, sorry)

Good point, agree all the sections could be much shorter. It's definitely an odd situation (and heck, wouldn't this all just be solved if the B-pipe was independent?). I may have access to some photos I can get people to release GFDL. Let me ask around. Qmax 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Rfc was closed; edits made to main page and discussion in new section below. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 09:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see above section for new comments from other editors. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the section content as it is now:

Accreditation non-compliance warnings and restoration
In December 2005, SACS reviewed the college and found that the college had "significant non-compliance with the core requirements."

As a result, its accreditation was given the status of warning, pending a follow up review in December 2006. An official statement addressing the probation was released: "This warning comes as a result of some questions about our adult degree completion program, reviewed in the fall of 2004. The fact is that Covenant College remains fully accredited, with full accreditation status for the entire college program. However, the warning requires that we address specific issues regarding our adult degree completion program." The college sent its final report to SACS concerning how it has addressed those specific areas of concern in February 2006.

The warning for accreditation was removed and the ten year examination by SACS took place in 2006, and the college's accreditation was completely reaffirmed.

And here are some proposed edits that condenses existing edits and adds info about another warning, and moves the statement under Covenant College#Academics:

The college has been accredited since 1971 by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), which has sanctioned the school twice with warnings related to non-compliance of accreditation requirements. A 2004 warning was removed the following year after the college complied with a "financial review related to the U.S. Department of Education's financial analysis"; and a 2005 warning issued after on-site reviews revealed compliance issues with the Quest adult education program and undergraduate degree program in early childhood education was removed in December 2006 when a follow-up review showed the programs were in compliance.

(first 4 references are just duplicates of the first content)

Flowanda | Talk 06:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits seem in line with similar content at Andrew_College#Accreditation. Flowanda | Talk 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I had filed a Rfc because I thought more participation from uninvolved editors would provide fresh perspective and help prevent a repeat of this page's previous non-productive discussions about the very same issues -- citing blogs as sources or notable, then arguing endlessly when challenged that they were a reliable source, notable, authoritative, neutral, and completely in line with Wikipedia policy, despite detailed proof -- not from me, mind you, but by other editors -- to the contrary. That did not happen, and for whatever reason -- my inability to get the template correct, a perception that progress was taking place, or information too tangled to easily unravel or understand -- there has been no outside participation, and also no progress in this dispute. My proposed edits have been ignored while these editors discuss adding such "news" as MSNBC naming Covenant one of "America's prettiest campuses". (You can judge for yourself whether or not the school's press release and "winning" photo on Covenant's website (http://www.covenant.edu/news/08.13.07.php) is an accurate representation of having a submitted photo included in a photo gallery on MSNBC's FirstFace user-generated content area. While the content is screened automatically via filters and some human involvement (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17346883/), the Covenant photo was not included in the "editors pick".)

My position on the accreditation issue has not changed. Other people can determine the significance and amount of info included about this issue or other news/edits, but the content need to be properly sourced. Qmax's blog does not meet the requirements as a reliable source and there is no extraordinary circumstance that would allow an exception, especially when it's clear the school knows how to create and publish information on its own website without having to go through an alumnus/vendor blog. It does not matter how important, notable or how many ways you can prove authenticity or truth, without verification, the content is not notable, and therefore should be removed.

I tried to find other published sources of the statements and could not, so I edited the existing content without it, and posted internal links to show how other articles handled similar content. I would like to see this dispute dealt with and closed, so I am again asking for other editors to participate and comment. Thanks Flowanda | Talk 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Flowanda, I'm sorry you're not satisfied with the discussions of the other editors. I think, and I and Edonovan & Hedgehogfox (though I hope they'll correct me if I'm wrong) am in agreement that the issue is slightly more nuanced/complicated than at first thought. The three of us don't seem to be arguing whether or not the news itself is notable, but whether or not an official statement from an organization appearing on a blog can be used as a citation i.e. does the general unacceptable for citations nature of blogs negate the otherwise acceptable citation contained therein. It's a strange problem, and one I eagerly await input on from other editors. Also, I think that being named one of the nations prettiest campuses by MSNBC counts as a notable piece of news. I don't see how it isn't based on wikipedia's notability guidelines. Qmax 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My satisfaction is not the issue, and the only complexity is why the only way to get certain official information is via someone's personal blog. I am not the only editor who has challenged you on this exact issue -- and all other content/links to your blog have ultimately been removed. Wikipedia's policy is exceptionally clear that blogs are not reliable sources, so it's not any nuances editors need to know, but the basics. Flowanda | Talk 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I, at least, certainly agree that the news is notable; my concern is with sourcing it properly. The thing is, I imagine there is some sort of official source in which SACS warnings, etc. are listed. Since the issue seems to have been dealt with, however, I think that the section on it should be shortened.

Flowanda: if your satisfaction is not the issue, then whose is? Evan Donovan 05:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I could give my best Miss Teen America answer that it's all about the Reader and World Peace, but it's an odd question...odd in a good way. If you're asking me what I want, I'd say a stable article that accurately represents its subject and adheres to Wikipedia's policies. A talk page that doesn't suck all the energy from the main page. More editors with no Covenant ties to provide perspective and prevent "owner creep".

As to the accreditation issue, I'd like a solution that everyone feels good about and is clear, clean and helps prevent similar debates or challenges in the future. I'd like a frank discussion that uses AGF to first clear out the 800-lb gorillas instead of being forced to ignore them or secretly hang on to them. I'd like more editors involved, even if it's to add a comment or a link. I'd like to start the discussion from scratch by archiving the talk page (if that's appropriate), giving up what we previously thought should happen, and since the info's not contentious or BLP, sending the rules out with the gorillas...they can go outside and smoke or terrorize people on the Incline. And I'm reversing myself to say we write what needs to be written, source it and if the source bucks Wikipedia whatever, then we defend the decision and post it on the talk page as reference.

And I'd like a pony.Flowanda | Talk 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider to this particular article and someone unconnected to this institution, it seems to me that with a few minor modifications citing the e-mails would be okay in this instance as the content is not contested or controversial. Sprinkle one or two words such as "purported" about the quotes to help readers understand that the e-mails are being quoted or referenced second-hand and I think we're okay until someone challenges the actual content of the messages. If, however, someone is challenging the content of the messages then I'm afraid the right thing to do would be to remove the quotations as the points about the source's reliability are valid.

Further, I don't think the article will really suffer if those quotes are removed. In fact, it seems a bit much to spend more than a few sentences on this unless there are more sources or additional developments. In other words, this deserves to be mentioned but unless someone can dig up more sources then it seems like a minor development not deserving of significant coverage in this article. To do so would violate NPOV by placing undue weight on these events. --ElKevbo 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Elkevbo for input. In looking at the way other schools have handled similar content and the general lack of external reporting on this subject, it seems these issues aren't really notable in a college's long-term history unless the problems continue or escalate. Is there a way we can cut down on the length and number of citations without skimming over the important details or going overboard? Flowanda | Talk 02:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing accreditation content that is not sourced per WP:RS

I changed my mind about not making edits concerning accreditation, and I have removed the quotes that were not adequately sourced. I'm no longer going to defend the deletion of Qmax's edits when every other non-notable reference he's added -- and there are quite a few -- have been removed in the past. Qmax, if the college wants to use your blog as its official source for news, that's fine, but that doesn't obligate Wikipedia to recognize it as a reliable source or make an exception to its policy. If you want to re-add the content, then find sources that obviously meet WP:RS or file an official request for an exception. I'll be happy to work to include whatever content needs to be added and finding alternative sources, but if you continue to insist on keeping your sources, proving verifiability and notability is your job. Flowanda | Talk 09:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the third-party input, there's an appeals process you need to follow, and this isn't a personal matter. I think ELKevbo made an excellent point about not putting undue weight on the issue, and we should figure out how to trim the article down to be more equitable. I don't claim to be perfect in my wikipedia edits, but I'll defend them and defer to the wikipedia community and the clear appeals process it's put into place, and I don't understand why you feel the need to punt that process? Qmax 21:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that pretty much no one contributes here anymore while you are in circular argument mode, and that you have ignored suggestions or feedback on edits until now, I say, have at it Qmax. File what you want. Interpret what you want. Shut down what you want. Ignore the rest of the talk page all you want. If the "wikipedia community" says citing your self-described non-biased entries and resulting spontaneous comments is just more "harmless" self-promotional that's just peachy with them, truly, fine with me...the article probably deserves them. I have no stake in the matter. But, as I said, until you prove WP:EL or WP:RS, your blogs are gone. Flowanda | Talk 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Flowanda, this is a community, and we have to work together and in a manner consistent with wikipedia's policies, and it's a violation of those policies for you to continue to delete content that the wikipedia community has agreed is noteworthy and acceptable. I understand that you don't like that I'm the author of the blog, but that doesn't mean the content is a violation of wikipedia standards. We judge the content in question, not the authors. Qmax 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, your job. Your edits and page discussions reflect nothing of what you say above. Flowanda | Talk 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it your responsibility to show why the edits "reflect nothing"? I'm stating very clearly that you're not submitting to the third party judgement, which is a violation of due wikipedia process, and that if you don't like the third party opinion, you can appeal it. Why don't you want to appeal it? Qmax 14:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More games, but no "judgment", no concensus. no appeal, no violation, other than 3RR. And no blogs as long as you'd rather bluff, bully or disrupt the editing process in order to get your way instead of engaging in constructive conversation. I'm tired of this, so really, take it up with someone else, but I will keep removing your non-notable personal blogs until there is concensus. Finding it is your job. Flowanda | Talk 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't finding consensus our job, a mutual responsibility as members of the Wikipedia community? And the e-mail on the blog was sourced, and where have I or anyone argued that the blog was notable? I'm not sure how that's relevant, though I'm open to hearing why/how, and in the meantime, why can't we agree to submit to the 3rd party judgment? Would you agree to seek mediation, perhaps through the Mediation Cabal? Qmax 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your choice. It would have shown more willingness to cooperate if you hadn't continued to add back your blogs, marking your edits as minor, including the entire blog url in your edit summary or have participated in any way that indicated you were willing to consider any edits than your own. Flowanda | Talk 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC

It's not just my choice. Mediation (and 3rd party input) and other forms of conflict resolution requires that all parties involved agree to that course of action. Can you agree to seek at least informal mediation at this point? Qmax 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times, I am open to any changes, and my edits show that I entered a discussion on this page only because YOU reverted edits resulting from a previous discussion on this very same subject. I have made attempt after attempt to try to find balance between the previous discussion (which when another editor acted on, you just reverted) and a new discussion I started to try to work out a balance of what three editors wanted to add/remove, the timeliness of the information and how other schools handle the almost exact same kind of information. Since ElKevbo was the only "third-party" editor who added comments during an Rfc, and only because I asked him, I'll let him weigh in on that if he wants, but after his comments, again, I attempted a discussion about the edits that was, again, ignored. I decided to edit the content down to a previous suggestion I'd made and what met WP:RS and previous suggestions, with an offer to help find whatever information needed to be added, but that didn't work either, and only began an edit war....which as you may remember, has been talked about twice with you Qmax on this page by me and another editor.

Please note that another editor and I were the only ones who made suggestions and actual edits on this content; all you did was revert them -- and without discussion whenever possible.

I said it was your choice because, again, I have only expressed willingness to work on these edits, and am still willing as long as several other editors get involved and stay involved without being ignored, and that concensus is clearly achieved and easily referenced for future editing.

But it is YOUR action to choose and initiate. Flowanda | Talk 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo's proposed compromise

I've posted a proposed compromise on my Talk page. The references template gets messed up if there are more than one of them in a particular page (there are already two in this page). Although I had to post the test elsewhere, please post comments and reactions here. --ElKevbo 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposed compromise looks solid. It shortens up the entry and does not give undue weight to the content in question. Qmax 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. There have been serious inaccuracies posted here about my edits, my motives and how Wikipedia works by an editor who twists the rules to fit his relentless, endless self-promotional agenda. Issues about COI, notability, reliable sources and dispute resolution have not been addressed, and nobody knows why the editors originally involved in this discussion are no longer involved...I guess I am the only one not on the "official" Covenant email list.

My request to Elkevbo concerned the dispute process, not the actual edits. Qmax can and will spin my statement any way he wants, which is fine...if Qmax's personal blog is the "official" outlet for Covenant, then have at it, Covenant officials. You deserve having this non-notable, personal, biased blog represent your school. But Qmax, when you start trying to promote EPB and its incredibly smart fiber optic alternatives....well...there we will be again.

Until then and if nothing is done, editors should know what they are in for when they try to -- again -- challenge your edits, and your clients should understand what Wikipedia is really about. Flowanda | Talk 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you feel the need to make this personal, that's not how wikipedia works. I feel like I (and others) are really trying to work to gain consensus. I made a conscious decision to give full disclosure about who I am, because I care about transparency. I don't think I'm perfect; I make edits about what I care about, and I submit myself to the Wikipedia community at large to help govern and guide the direction both of Wikipedia in general but also in particular cases like this. I tend to believe in the process of Wikipedia, and if we can't all agree to follow those guidelines, then all we've got is anarchy (or "edit wars"). Do you see the problem? Qmax 04:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the genuine issue you are trying to raise nor the remedy you seek. I fail to see how the particular source in question is particularly objectionable or controversial as it's a non-controversial statement. Are you seriously challenging that the institution did not say what Qmax claims they said?

If there were any controversy whatsoever here then I would agree with you that a better source is required. But this is such a simple and non-controversial matter that I fail to see why anyone would expend energy on it. Making this into a personal issue, an affront on your personal dignity, and a personal crusade is ridiculous and contrary to the letter and spirit of what we do here. Please reconsider your approach and your actions. --ElKevbo 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick aside: I posted a screen cap of the e-mail in question with full headers to further verify the quote: http://chattablogs.com/quintus/covenant-college-sacs-statement.png Qmax 13:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The remedy I sought was clarity on the use of personal blogs as citations...I didn't have a problem with them as an exception in this one case...and I said so. But the blogs are not WP:RS, written by an authority, or became notable just because the content in them is said to be notable. And let's be clear: Qmax' version of concensus is reverting any edits he doesn't agree with and just plain making stuff up.

And if this is such minor content, why not just bring the edits in line with how other articles treat the issue? Is "because Flowanda is being a jerk" a good enough reason not to? But, Elkevbo, you are correct that this went too far over a minor edit. I happily yield the article back to Qmax and my apologies to the other editors whose edits and issues were again ignored, and to you for having to put up with me. And Qmax, this is not personal, and I have no grudge against you, but I am concerned about those who do coming here because of your "transparency" and making assumptions about Wikipedia and article subjects based on your edits.

The issue has never been about the edits or if the emails were official; it's about how Qmax' overall edit history indicates the opposite of everything he said in his last paragraph. I assert that what Qmax cares about is promoting himself and his company and uses disclosure as a way to claim carte blanche in editing about his clients and his company in the mainspace without challenge. My concern is that these companies don't know Wikipedia policies, or perhaps even that he's editing on their "behalf", or how his edits could come back and haunt them while he and his buds are out high-fiving about their latest "disinformation experiment".

But in the interest of transparency and all the claims you made above, Qmax, please detail your and Coptix' exact professional relationship with Covenant College, and exactly how your edits and your blog posts are related, both in spirit and letter, official and unofficial.

Flowanda | Talk 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Flowanda. I concur that it would be best for editors with potential conflicts of interest to reveal them and not perform any controversial edits to the article. A review of our COI policies might be a good idea for any editors who think they may have a conflict of interest. --ElKevbo 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem: like many of the other editors on this article, I attended Covenant College until 2003. My company performed one job (a design for a blog they never used) for the College two years ago, and neither I nor my employer have anything to do with the College in any official or unofficial capacity in any way. So there is no conflict of interests insofar as the article is of interest to me because I attended the College. I'm certain that doesn't amount to a conflict of interests, no? If you look at the overwhelming bulk of the articles I've created or contributed to you can see that the vast majority have nothing to do with my job.

I contribute articles about Chattanooga and Chattanooga companies because that's what I care about (it's where I live, work, and play), and I've never been paid or asked to say anything with regards to anything, and you're in violation of WP:NPA for implying as much (and for other things). If I make a mistake in an edit, that doesn't automagically mean someone is somehow biased or trying to corrupt Wikipedia. It's called WP:FAITH. A POLICY of wikipedia. And thankfully, there are processes and other editors for helping develop consensus on what is or is not appropriate on wikipedia. Perfection is not required, or we'd all be screwed.

The "old" mantra of wikipedia has been (and will continue to be) it's the edits, not the editors, that we judge.

Qmax 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So where does this leave us in terms of the section in dispute? (For the record, I have not apparent COI with respect to this article; I am a higher ed scholar and research but I have no connection to this institution.) --ElKevbo 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the content in question is notable, given its media coverage/citations, and I think that is is important to include the official statement of the College on the matter. I get that it's an unconventional citation (official statement within a blog), but it's not biased, verified, and appropriate to the content in question, especially after the section was shortened to create balance in the overall article (which I think was a good suggestion). Also, ElKevbo, I hope I didn't imply in any way that you had COI with regards to the article. Qmax 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Qmax' very own quote about a previous marketing ploy sums up the credibility of his blog and edits: "We also modified our personal and professional blog posts to show pleasure at the photograph, so any unscrupulous researcher could jump to conclusions. This has driven tens of thousands of visitors to our Web site.”

So, no, I don't agree with any of what Qmax says about his blog; it's a single exception that I don't agree with, but won't object to for the sake of ending this. It also needs to be noted that unless the school gave Qmax or others permission to post the email, it's not an official statement, but a private email to certain people that was posted on a personal blog...I don't know if that matters in this case since it does provide clarification. Since both citations go to the same page, the condensed copy probably only needs one reference.

And I strongly encourage Qmax to file an administrative complaint; I'll stack up my edits against his any day of the week and his misrepresentations here and elsewhere concerning me and my edits against my comments. Flowanda | Talk 02:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A statement issued to the public is a public statement, by definition. I also didn't say anything about my blog, only the e-mail posted in the blog (key distinctions, mind you). I do appreciate you finally being willing to consider the content in question, as opposed to the authors of said content. I also agree with your point that the piece could be shortened further, to include only one reference to the e-mail. Would you like to make the edit Flowanda? Qmax 06:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather be banned than have anything to do with edits associated with you or your company. Please let me know when you file the complaint you referenced above as I would like to clear up inaccurate statements you continue to make about my edits and comments. Flowanda | Talk 02:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Now I'm just confused. What are you talking about? If you don't want to have anything to do with this discussion, why do you keep, well, discussing it? I thought we were striving for consensus. Qmax 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable Faculty.

Hi. other small christian schools in georgia have a section known as "Notable Faculty" also by reading them. I changed "notable alumni" to "prestigious alumni"

Does anyone think someone that was buried in Arlington National Cemetery would be considered notable? Such as Jana Lynn Werson, which HedgeHogFox deleted?

How about other people such as one current, and one former, Lt. Colonel's for our armed forces?

I know we may not have such a distinguished list such as Mercer Universities... (take a look)

They even have a list that is broken down by sections...

I also think painter Rob Colvin is notable/prestigious...

just because there is no wiki entry yet, does not mean they are not note worthy. It's a small school. with only 5000 people to pool from versus like 80,000 for Mercer. they may be less prominent that Supreme Court Justices, or congress people.

I just found the "discussion" link. so, bear with me. I'm putting my entry up for discussion.

please w/b flower and hedge.

thanks, and what is 'yalls view on:

T. March Bell (1978) Senior Special Counsel for Trafficking Issues, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice.[9][10] Peter Polk (1976), former professor of Computer Science and Systems Engineering at United States Military Academy, West Point, New York.[11] Lt. Col. Frederick S. McFarland (1971), military chaplain, United States Air Force.[12][13] Ensign Jana Lynn Werson (2000), nurse, United States Navy buried at Arlington National Cemetery. (Section 66, Site 1346)[14][15][16] Robert Edward Colvin, Jr. (2000), painter-artist.[17][18] Wes King, singer-songwriter[19]

See the Wikipedia criteria for notability. None of the people listed above fit. That isn't to say they are not good and significant people to their communities. It's just that they haven't reached the status of notability (i.e., one would have a hard time imagining any of them having a Wikipedia entry in their own right. Hedgehogfox (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Chapman

Most institutions do not consider someone "alumni" until they have completed four semester. While Chapman did attend Covenant, he did not even complete one semester, so I don't think it bears mentioning his name as an alumni. Hedgehogfox (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Webster's (or most other decent dictionaries) - "alumnus: a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university." Mark David Chapman is, actually, an alumnus, and whether someone thinks it bears mentioning or not, he is by any common definition actually notable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.24.38 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable alumni section editing -- February 2011

After checking each of the listings in Covenant College#Notable alumni, I have edited or removed most of them, noting the reason or pertinent Wikipedia policy in the edit summaries. WP:BLP policy applies here, so discuss edits here first. Flowanda | Talk 08:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone speak to why this particular list of alumni is actually notable? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  02:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

NRHP

This does not appear on National Register of Historic Places listings in Walker County, Georgia. It does not seems to be in the only historic district on Lookout Mountain, which is the Lookout Mountain Fairyland Club. What is its reference number (refnum), NRHP name, and date? KudzuVine (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Put the nrhp infobox back if it is actually listed. KudzuVine (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny that there was an issue here, this way, back in 2012. User:KudzuVine, are you still active? Anyhow, KudzuVine was correct back then. But actually recently the Carter Hall building / Lookout Mountain Hotel, has in fact been listed on the National Register. And it is not in Walker County, it is in Dade County, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's right, see National Register of Historic Places listings in Dade County, Georgia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covenant 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223340/http://www.sacscoc.org/details.asp?instid=24400 to http://www.sacscoc.org/details.asp?instid=24400

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covenant 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100411042534/http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_172893.asp to http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_172893.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Location

Their website, near the bottom, if you click on their address, it shows you were it is. It is near the city of Lookout Mountain but not near it, and it is in Dade County. Their street address is Lookout Mountain. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion!

You're referring to the website that says the university's mailing address is "14049 Scenic Highway, Lookout Mountain, Georgia 30750" right? Given that clear fact and that the same address is what the university has on record with U.S. Department of Education, we're going to need some pretty strong sources that make explicit claims otherwise. I'm afraid that Wikipedia editors looking at a map and drawing their own conclusions is original research; moreover, if there aren't any good sources that state otherwise then it's reasonable to assume that this isn't a noteworthy fact or one that's in dispute. ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, the National Register of Historic Places, by the National Park Service, lists it in Dade County. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please provide a URL or bibliographic information? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is one source from the Federal Government. Scroll down to it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This is their campus map - it shows where it is. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This news report says that it is outside Chatanooga. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba73. Yes, clicking on the address at the bottom of their page brings one to a Google map, this is where i was brought to. Also clicking on their "Campus Map" webpage brings up a Google map. With the viewing parameters set as they are, these Google maps do not immediately display city/county borders though, right? User:Bubba73, could you clarify further please, how you see that it is in Dade county and not in the city of Lookout Mountain? For others, I guess.

Also, check out Covenant College's Our Location page. Which does not say where it is located! Which is pretty good indication that they are in general fudging about their exact legal location. Instead, it is all about implying they are on "Lookout Mountain" (and not claiming to be in city of Lookout Mountain, Georgia) and implying they are in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This is all perfectly fine for them, for their marketing purposes, for their keeping things simple for the public.

And we all know that for your mailing address, you can probably use a couple different names for adjacent/nearby towns/cities and you still get your mail. I am sure lots of people near-but-not-technically-in more prestigious locations, like perhaps Beverly Hills, CA rather than Los Angeles, choose to use the better-sounding or simpler-to-understand one. Anyhow, Bubba73, could you follow up more, please?--Doncram (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A search of the National Register of Historic Places (go here and search for either "Carter Hall" or "Lookout Mountain Hotel") doesn't seem to help very much. It lists the state (Georgia), the country (Dade), the city (Lookout Mountain), and the same street address the university has listed (14049 Scenic Hwy.). Is the campus small enough that we can be reasonably confident that it's all in the same listed location as this one building? Additionally, this doesn't at all definitively clear up if the college is Lookout Mountain or unincorporated Dade County. ElKevbo (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The weekly listings of the NRHP list it in Dade County (I linked to that). The NRHP nomination form would probably help clarify it, but as far as I can tell, the form isn't online yet. It is actually on the mountain named Lookout Mountain. It is not in (or even just outside) the city of Lookout Mountain, Georgia (population 1602 - salute!). Its mailing address is 14000-something Lookout Mountain, GA, and that large of an address in such a small city indicates that it is well outside of town. FWIW, its telephone area code and exchange are for Rossville, Georgia.

I have comments about maps, coordinates, and original research, but I'll probably make them at the other page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I've emailed the state organization to ask them to email me a copy of the NRHP nomination form. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's about the Lookout Mountain Hotel, right? Please do email it on to me, if you get it in electronic form. It should also be possible to get it by email request to the National Park Service. --Doncram (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and so far I haven't gotten a reply. (I think I did get a reply when I contacted them a few years ago about another one.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Located in Dade County, not in city of Lookout Mountain, not in Walker County.

It is NOT REASONABLE, contrary to a recent edit summary, to continue asserting incorrect fact of its location. Right, like lots of colleges, it chooses to use the location of its nearest real community, and of its post office, in its official listings, and that is reflected elsewhere. So? It is still wrong. Maps showing borders are the relevant sources, instead. --Doncram (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you mind keeping the discussion centralized in the section above that's already open and on the exact same topic? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I indented the title here to put it into the same section. I would have preferred to discuss the location just here, but there is now also Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is use of Google Maps to determine a specific location original research?. I don't have power to close that in favor of centralizing discussion here. Whatever. But see there for more information that i posted there. --Doncram (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a fractured conversation! While we believe in reliably sourced information, when we encounter reliably sourced information that is demonstrably false, we should at least acknowledge that the information is inaccurate. Simply listing the location as Lookout Mountain without acknowledging the fact that it is not would be very wrong.~ That said, the acknowledgment junks up the lede, yet the location is the sort of information that needs to be there. Could we consider just mentioning the state in the lede, and move the specific location into the body of the article?Jacona (talk)

In one of my two edits putting the info in, my edit summary was "clarify about where it is located. This is perhaps too much about that in the lead; perhaps the details could be clarified further below instead." --Doncram (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that if we have reliable sources that show the location is not exactly what the college claims then we shouldn't discuss that in detail in the very first sentence of the article. If we can agree that one or more reliable sources show that college is definitively located in X then it's probably best to say that in the lede and the infobox with both linking to a footnote that concisely describes the situation (e.g., "Although the college's mailing address is Y, the college is physically located in X.<source(s)>").

I'm just not yet convinced that we have those reliable sources. The link provided above for the historic registry is a decent one but it's far from perfect (i.e., it's a brief newsletter update and not an actual database entry or description, it references an old hotel that is now part of the college and not the college itself). The maps provided so far are not at all convincing to me given that they require significant interpretation by Wikipedia editors.

Once again, if this is really a noteworthy fact or controversy then it's incumbent on editors making that claim to provide clear evidence. It's a bad sign when Wikipedia editors are trying to interpret primary sources to dispute reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to ramble a bit here, it is not really worth spending the time to be more organized, sorry.

• The facts are what they are. It does not require any interpretation by editors to read what a map showing borders says the borders are, for a city or county. To get Google to show a map of a city with borders, yes, you do have to enter the city's name into the search box. That is no big deal. You are welcome to go to a library or buy a printed map or whatever, to get a map that shows borders into your hands some other way, but that is not necessary.
• I'm sorry, I don't feel like bending over backwards to be helpful here. ElKevbo is just wrong and yet has acted in high-handed fashion, several times over now, which rubs me the wrong way. ElKevbo opened discussion at the sources noticeboard, where they assert "original research" has gone on. They has been answered there (by me, but without anyone else disagreeing), that it is not OR. And they are not following up there.
• Now, here, they are bringing up "primary sources" and "reliable sources" as issues, which they did not bring up at the noticeboard. And disputing "clear evidence". It is their problem, that they need to get over, about maps and facts and truth. Has the noticeboard discussoin been abandoned by ElKevbo? How about acknowledging there, what further stuff I provided about colleges sometimes/often being unreliable sources about their own location for their purposes of marketing and simplicity for the public. How about asking there, clearly, whether maps are to be dismissed as primary sources (nonsense: maps are secondary/tertiary/higher level in general, like encyclopedias) or as unreliable (especially when multitudes of maps all say the same thing?).
• ElKevbo, could you disclose your relationship to Covenant College and/or this article? I have not reviewed much of your other contributions, but in recent edit history there are other interactions where it appears offhand that you are rejecting others' contributions to the article, in a mode that appears possibly like having too much wp:OWNERSHIP here. Just because one editor seems not familiar with how maps work, and has their own beliefs/assumptions about the college, doesn't mean they're right or that they should get any more say than anyone else.

--Doncram (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The only question I asked at the Original Research Noticeboard was a specific question about whether something should or should not be considered original research. Questions or assertions about other things would be off-topic on that noticeboard. I haven't posted anything further there because my position has been made clear; I've asked other people for their opinion so I'll wait for them to offer it. (I also think that your later additions to that article about Stanford and other institutions are off-topic in that discussion so I won't follow up there.)

I have no connection to this institution and the accusation is a ridiculous one given my editing history and my publicly available CV a few clicks away from my User page. And accusations that I don't know "how maps work" border on or are outright personal attacks. That's not acceptable and won't be tolerated.

The questions I've asked are reasonable ones and we're working our way to potential answers. Derailing the discussion with personal attacks or irrelevant examples aren't helpful. You've made an assertion now you should find reliable sources that support it - sources that don't rely on Wikipedia editors making their own interpretation. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. Could you reply further above to my reference to the College's "Our Location" webpage, which blatantly does not assert that it is in Lookout Mountain, Georgia? Please do explain there. --Doncram (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that that's interesting circumstantial evidence and the absence of a claim on the page is suggestive. But it's difficult to conclude that "institution X is in location Y" from a webpage that doesn't say that. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Legal properties

I'll explain in more detail here, for persons who aren't familiar with maps or how to look up exact legal ownership of properties. :)

It's not hard to look up legal ownership of properties. It is not surprising to me, when i do, to find that Covenant College owns properties in a largish area, in both Dade County and Walker County, as universities do purchase properties for various reasons, if and when they can. In general, to see property ownership you search to find county tax assessor websites, and follow their links. Often, maybe almost always, the actual databases/map presentations are served up by a commercial service. Dade and Walker counties both use QPublic, you will find your way to QPublic pages when you follow links from the official county tax assessor pages. I am spelling this out more, just in case anyone wants to pick up on more facts here, in order to dispute them.

Here is Dade County search form. Put in "Covenant College" in the "Search by Owner Name" field. Then hit return. What is called "Results" then comes up. See there are 30 or however many legal parcels there. In the right column, titled "Maps", there are links to, well, maps. A map for a parcel shows where the parcel is located. Please do browse there, and assure for yourself where the substantial campus of Covenant College is located.

Here is Walker County's search form. Put in "Covenant College" in the "Search by Owner Name" field. Then hit return. What is called "Results" then comes up. See there are 10 or however many legal parcels there. In the right column, titled "Maps", there are links to, well, maps. A map for a parcel shows where the parcel is located. Please do browse there, and see that Covenant College does own some properties across the county line from its main campus.

--Doncram (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This is all very interesting and suggests that there may be something here but this seems like exactly the kind of thing that our policy against original research discourages. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think looking at the tax maps is a good idea and I don't see how that is original research, anymore than checking any other reference. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Right, we can all see that the college campus appears to be entirely within Dade County parcel 058 00 053 00, which has 28 acres, with assessed value of $338,200 (perhaps a small fraction of market value; i don't know what is the effective multiplier applying for assessments in this county) with all the college buildings in fact being west of Scenic Drive, while the county line is off in woodlands to the right of Scenic Drive.

If it helps, you can look also at the Dade County Comprehensive Plan's maps, and at the Walker County Comprehensive Plan maps, and at City of Lookout Mountain maps, all by simple Google searching. For the latter, the city's website is not good at serving up any planning maps, as far as I could tell the other day, but there's a file with "part2" in its file name which can be found, which is a PDF of part of one comprehensive plan revision, which does include a map. It happens to report that Covenant College does receive waste water/sanitation services from the City of Lookout Mountain, despite being over the border, at least it will (has already?) when some waste pumping station on the Covenant College campus is or was closed. Earlier in that document, it tries to sorta imply that Covenant College is an important institution for the city (though it does not explicitly make any false claim). The Dade County plan, by the way, states that Covenant College is the largest employer in the county; the Walker and Lookout Mountain ones don't/can't make such assertions. The Dade county one also mentions some county work needing to be done on the Covenant College wastewater system, presumably the portion running from the campus pumping station that is being closed, to the Walker county border.

The first step here is for people to agree what the facts are, based on maps (which all entirely agree with one another). The second step is to consider what should be used in the article as reference on the facts; this should basically be pointing to one or more of the perfectly-agreeing definitive sources that are never wrong, i.e. pointing to Google maps would be appropriate, as I kind of did in the footnote to my edit in the article already. Maybe a third step is working out what to say at top, in the lede, without footnote, vs. what to say with footnote further down. Probably in the lede it would be appropriate to follow the College's own example and say that the college is near the Tennessee-Georgia border, on Lookout Mountain (which it is, as long as you link to, and mean, the physical mountain, not the City of Lookout Mountain). [And this is optional, but it further probably can be useful to say it is on the western downward slope of the mountain ridge, which i think it is, from what the Dade County Comprehensive Plan says if i recall correctly, but this can be confirmed from looking at some mapping system showing elevation contours. This could happen to do a really good job of physically situating the college for the mind of readers, i.e. suggesting that you can see sunsets well, but not sunrises, if it is indeed confirmed to be on that slope.] --Doncram (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have skipped a critical step which is that we all need to agree on the aims and policies of this project. One of our core policies is that we don't engage in original research and I'm genuinely disturbed that you and others seem to fundamentally misunderstand or reject that policy.

However, I think we might be able to sidestep this issue for now and go our separate ways. I strongly suspect that the sources already cited in the article in the history section refer to "Lookout Mountain" and not the "City of Lookout Mountain." If that is indeed the case then it sounds like we might all be happy to simply say that the college is on the mountain without saying that it's in the city just as you suggest. But then we can cite the sources that are already in the article and we don't even have to get near any issues of original research. How does that sound? ElKevbo (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't care about making some assertion of west-facing slope or not, but it is a basic core encyclopedic fact to state in the article, at least further down, where the college is located. "You seem to have skipped a critical step which is that we all need to agree on" the location of the college. In fact, because of the confusion engendered for you and others, it is all the more important/valuable for Wikipedia to give the correct (and surprising to some) information. Instead of just being an insipid article that says nothing different than what would be expected: the school has a library, etc., blah blah blah. Like the hippocratic oath, first do no harm, like for an encyclopedia do not state or imply or go along with false assertions. The confusion for you and others is clearly engendered from the college's own deliberate nonspecificity and its tactical use of a different location in its mailing address, and the college is certainly not going out of its way to correct others who accept the implications (for marketing and simplicity-type purposes). The first step is for you to admit the fact of location here, which you have still not done. --Doncram (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to leave you and your colleagues alone to comb through primary sources and draw whatever conclusions you'd like - I'm removing this article from my watchlist. Please keep an eye on it and revert any vandalism you happen to see in the future! ElKevbo (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well walking away is one way to resolve it, i guess. I dunno if that is being mature or the opposite, i.e. avoiding admitting any error of fact or process here. I confess I did have a bit of a negative edge throughout the discussion here, at my talkpage, and at the noticeboard, so I could have been in error process-wise, sort of. I probably woulda gotten around to apologizing somewhat, but I was in fact irked by the degree of dismissal/disrespect conveyed in my direction, in the process, which undermined having a more cooperative, friendly discussion. Note: Some of that conveyance was by rapidity of response, not shown by just reading the words written, I guess i am saying this for anyone reading later. For example the instantaneous/unthinking charging of edit warring and charging of purported unwillingness by me to Talk, at my Talk page, and the elevating of stuff to a noticeboard within seconds of my making an edit which in fact provided a footnote and a way forward to discuss, instead of discussing. Oh well. --Doncram (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wording for lede and below

Okay, i think the following (which i just tried putting into the article) is appropriate for the lede:

Covenant College is a private Christian liberal arts college on Lookout Mountain in Georgia, near Chattanooga, Tennessee.

with Notes section far below showing:

This is very similar to what Covenant College's "Our Location" webpage says. I don't want to give a free pass to assertion of being "near" Chattanooga, if that is not true, though. Google Maps says that, right now late at night there, from campus visitor center to downtown Chattanooga travel time should be 17 or 20 or 20 minutes, with distance of 7.4 or 8.4 or 8.8 miles. I dunno, that is near enough for me.

And i changed the single-sentence "Campus" section intro from (incorrect):

The campus is located at the top of Lookout Mountain in Lookout Mountain, Georgia.

to (factual):

The campus is located at the top of Lookout Mountain in Dade County, Georgia, near the city of Lookout Mountain, Georgia, which is in Walker County, Georgia.

I actually think that is good, and not too long. I think it is lighter and better not to add a bunch of references to Google Maps, Mapquest, Dade County Comprehensive Plan, Walker County Comprehensive Plan, City of Lookout Mountain Comprehensive Plan, etc., which would suggest there is an issue. Comments/suggestions? --Doncram (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. (And I don't want to hear any arguments that using their website is a primary source instead of a secondary source.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)