Talk:Heartland Baptist Bible College

Accreditation status
Because Heartland Baptist Bible College is intended to be a practical, ministry training institution, the repeated reference to "unaccredited" seems purposed by someone who is trying to point out a negative about the school. The college's accreditation status is discussed later in the post. Even if accreditation status remains in the first paragraph, it seems reasonable to begin with the college's intention of providing practical training for ministers. This is not an effort to hide accreditation status--simply to be fair to the type of college discussed. The college is not trying to "act" accredited. The later post already says the institution is not seeking accreditation. Maybe the opening paragraph could be revised to explain what the institution's purpose is--rather than repeating what it cannot do. R495364r (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not unusual for institutions which desire to maintain a level of freedom from external constraints to choose to remain unaccredited. Accreditation generally comes with strings attached, some of which are not in line with an organization's core values. Institutions of higher learning are assumed to be accredited; being unaccredited is the exception, not the rule.  As such, it deserves to be noted prominently. There is no conspiracy to discredit this institution by including its uncommon status.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What your saying there is fair, and I actually agree with your overall point. However, does the same emphasis get placed upon other vo-tech/training colleges? Is this in the first line of every other unaccredited Bible college? As a compromise, is it okay if I write out a suggested new paragraph for debate/consensus? I will make sure to include the accreditation status in the first paragraph. R495364r (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge this is in line with how other similar articles are written (and note that most vo-tech/training colleges are indeed accredited). But I don't think that it would hurt to have a little bit more nuance here so please feel free to propose some alternative or additional language! ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thank you to both of you. I keep saying it because I'm afraid I'm coming across like a troll. Just trying to make a helpful difference on Wikipedia where I have some knowledge. I did not mean to be "disruptive." I will work on more "nuanced" wording and propose it here. If it takes me until tomorrow or next week to get around to that, will it still flag both of you? Or do I need to "talk" to you directly to let you know what I'm proposing? By the way, the history can even be updated by events directly from the college website that have not been updated. Am I allowed to make those suggestions, too? These aren't either positive or negative updates--just updates. R495364r (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As for what other articles do, the vast majority of other colleges are accredited. Of the subset, it would be determined by the volunteer editors who put in their time to make those determinations. Bear in mind that the original author of this page included this information in this way, that it was not vandalized or being discredited -- it has been that way since its inception in 2007.  One could as easily make the assertion that it is biased to include it prominently "as a point of pride for the college" or "someone is trying to discredit the school." Opposite conclusions for the same information.  It is all in the eye of the reader.  The way I read it, I merely see that it is an uncommon status.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If it takes a while to write something or you write something and don't get a response, feel free to drop us a line on our respective Talk pages or to get our attention by mentioning us here with the ping template (by typing ; inserting your username produces the following output and notifies you: ). And feel free to make noncontroversial changes directly to the article without discussing them first. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You make a great point about perception. Emphasizing a lack of accreditation can be a "source of pride" or "an effort to discredit." I must have read the history wrong if you are suggesting the exact wording has been there since the inception of the page. I did not understand it that way when I researched the wording. I will craft neutral suggestions for revision when I can. Do either of you have any recommendations for what to keep in mind as I write? I don't want to make another ill-advised edit. R495364r (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have any suggestions on how to modify the very first sentence of the article. I think that anything more complicated than just "unaccredited" makes the opening sentence more complex and unwieldy than the opening sentence of an article is supposed to be.
 * I'm not sure if the word needs to be included in the infobox; that may be non-standard and inconsistent with other articles. I'd take a gander at the documentation for that template and its associated Talk page for guidance.  My experience has been that many of the parameters of that infobox are poorly defined (with "type" being one of the top contenders for most poorly defined!).
 * The brief section about accreditation could probably use a little bit more explanation. I think the college has a small blurb on their website that could be used as a reference and perhaps even a source for a brief quote if that would work better. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the explanation. I did not mean to be controversial on my first edit. Seeing how zealously you guard the presentation of neutral information on each page, I understand now that it was controversial. I truly appreciate your vigilance! R495364r (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of information because it's negative about the college
One or more editors have been trying to remove information about an alumnus of this college using edit summaries such as "Information not conducive to the reputation of the institution represented on this page. No valid proof or source cited." and "Content not conducive to reputation of insitution. No valid sources cited." First and foremost, we do not remove or censor information to protect the reputation of subjects. Second, there are two reliable sources cited in the section and one even explicitly mentions this college as part of the background of the alumnus in question. ElKevbo (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the edits made about alumni, but the edits I contributed removed old information that was tied to a dead link. It was not to improve or damage the reputation of the institution; it was simply to make sure the information presented was up-to-date. R495364r (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There was yet another of these attempts today, as the editor claimed that they were not alumni since they had not graduated. Wikipedia defines alumni quite clearly on the Alumnus page. The editor also took the liberty to remove both unfavorable alumni in a blanking action. Zeugzeug (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There’s gotta be some sort of bot watching this page
So I’ve tried several times to improve this page by adding relevant information with citations from the institution itself, and it always reverts back. Isn’t that I violation of terms of service? I edited as a joke to test this feature and it reverted in less than 30 minutes. The thing I added was that it’s a cult and they use forced labor as punishment to enforce draconian rules including everyone has to be out of bed with chores done by 7:15 and no one can watch movies. Those aren’t even the most insane, just the beginning. Guys and girls can’t even high five. All that is true, and more. My source is students who left and never looked back. 67.129.8.225 (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit and I am definitely not a bot. I appreciate you trying to improve the article, but it seems like your edits are getting reverted because you are not familiar with policies regarding how to write an article. Your edit was not constructive, not cited, and did not represent a neutral point of view. I am not familiar with this college, but if what you're saying is accurate, it should be reflected in the article by referencing reliable sources and in a neutral manner. Additionally, what you're saying above represents original research which is not permitted - it must come from a third-party source.  dizzy flamingo  (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @67.129.8.225 should have pinged you  dizzy flamingo  (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah no this one was a joke. Previous edits get pulled just as fast regardless of citation. It definitely is a cult, and there’s lots of third party citations I could use. I also have citations for their forced labor practices. Are you associated with the school? You say you’re not, but you seemed to be pretty quick to pull a critical addition. The rest of the page seems edited in a very pro-HBBC manner with atrocious and irrelevant citations, yet whenever I’ve corrected them, someone reverts it. Almost like someone is censoring any undesirable information. Which is very on brand for this cult. 67.129.8.194 (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am definitely not affiliated with the school, I live in Canada. Please edit the article in a neutral manner and ensure you are citing reliable sources and you may find that your edits don't get reverted.  dizzy flamingo  (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @67.129.8.225 Wikipedia has many users who voluntarily monitor changes and remove vandalism and/or uncited info. This is why your changes are getting reverted so quickly. Please read up on some of the policies I've linked above.  dizzy flamingo  (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)