Talk:Morrison Academy/Archive 1

This article violates WP:NPOV
This article consists mostly of verbatim regurgitations of text from the Academy's web site. That's inappropriate as a Wikipedia article — especially because the text isn't quoted (e.g. the mission statement), making it appear that Wikipedia endorses a particular religious point of view. =Axlq 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Necessary changes will be made directly. Chrissu 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just changed the mission statement section to indicate that it's being quoted. The school's web site should be checked carefully to make sure other text isn't merely copied from there to here. =Axlq 18:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Rampant vandalism
This article seems to have been heavily vandalized, in particular the "School culture" section and other places. This article needs massive re-work. =Axlq 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism has been fixed. Chrissu 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job. I see you fixed the infobox too. =Axlq 18:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
MCA teaches the "five fundamentals" thus is a Fundamentalist Christian school.
 * 1) Inerrancy of the Scriptures
 * 2) The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
 * 3) The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
 * 4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus
 * 5) The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)


 * Morrison Christian Academy exists as an organization and a school that is tolerant of many different facets of Christianity, including Mormons and other Christian sects. It is inappropriate to categorize Morrison Christian Academy under a label like Christian Fundamentalism when in fact the atmosphere at the school is spiritually tolerant.  Morrison Christian Academy does not coerce students to follow Christianity, nor does it exhibit the signs of Christian Fundamentalism as the Wikipedia page points out (for example, the school does not criticize evangelicals such as Billy Graham, amongst numerous other differences).  The five tenets that you pointed out are central to many different sects of Christianity and your assumption that the school is Fundamentalist Christian possesses no claim.  It is absurd to say that because Morrison Academy observes such standards (amongst many other Christian principles) then the school should be labelled as Christian Fundamentalist.  For example, one of the branches of Christianity that also observes those five standards is the Baptist sect.  Yet, they do not refer to themselves as "Christian Fundamentalists."  Christian Fundamentalism had become a pejorative word to those who oppose Christianity or understands little about the inner mechanisms of Christianity.  This statement in no way reflects the Christian ambience of the school and not only inaccurate, but degrading.  In addition, please stop vandalizing the pages with your unfounded edits.  You are not adding to the Wikipedia community through your heavily biased views.  Keep your views to yourself or discuss them here.  Thank you.  Chrissu 11:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from High School Student Handbook
"The following, whether occurring on or off campus, can result in an immediate severe suspension and/or expulsion: smoking, drinking alcohol, ..."

- What? One puff or one drink and I could be outta the school?

"The keynote of any production or publication must be wholesomeness. Therefore, the following should be omitted:

1.	All references to speech or materials that are encouraging immoral conduct. 2.	Blasphemy, profanity, vulgarity, or any misuse of God’s name. 3.	Any material that might be contrary to upholding a Biblical position. 4.	Anything that focuses on or encourages practices of a questionable nature, such as smoking, drinking, drunkenness, drug abuse, etc.

-"some fundamentalists have become anti-intellectual to the point of looking down on those with higher education from secular institutions. The King-James-Only Movement, referring to fundamentalists reject later biblical translations in favor of the King James Version of the Bible could be said to be an example of this. They reject the scholarship that has led to these later translations, which frequently base themselves upon newly discovered Bible manuscripts. Because, for instance, those manuscripts do not contain a reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 and the scholars who produced the newer translations omit the Trinitarian part of the verse, which they believe to be corrupted (compare the NIV footnote[5]) - along with many other evidences of corruption, they allege."
 * Once again, is this true?

Certain members of the school community may be Fundamentalist Christians, but the school as a whole is religiously tolerant (I completely do not understand why Morrison Academy is intolerant) and does not shove religious dogma down students' throats. Many of my peers are not Christians and they have not been persecuted or ostracized by the school community.

Moreover, please stop vandalizing this page. Your previous so-called "school culture" section is absurd to the greatest degree. You possess significantly biased views and you are not adding to the article by flaming the school. Chrissu 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Morrison's Policy vs. Mainstream Policy
With your idea of a "normal" school, I think most prep schools, international schools, and parochial schools should be labelled as "Christian Fundamentalist." Do you actually think Morrison's rules are that stringent?


 * On Your Dissent of Smoking/Drinking and Suspension/Expulsion

I quote from TAS (Taipei American School)'s Policy Manual:

"In support of this expectation, a student may be suspended should he or she exhibit behavior that

2. Clearly demonstrates a conscious failure to live within and abide by TAS core values."

TAS's core value includes the value of "respect," "honesty," and "responsibility." TAS expresses that a student may be suspended if the student fails to live within TAS core values. Most students in the high school are under 18 and are not of age according to Republic of China law. Therefore, underage smoking and drinking is not only breaking the core values of TAS, it is also violating the laws of the Republic of China. TAS already communicated through their statement that if a student "[consciously fails]" to "live within and abide by the TAS core values [of respect, honesty, and responsibility]" then a student could be suspended. Do you honestly think that underage drinking falls into respectable and responsible behavior? It is not unreasonable for a school to list this expectation as one of the rules in the handbook. If TAS could suspend their students for drinking and smoking, do you think MCA's standard is anymore stringent?

I quote from IASAS (International Association of Southeast Asian Schools) policy on their intermural events:

"Smoking, drinking of alcohol, drug abuse and any unauthorized absence will not be permitted during any TAS sponsored event."

"When a student commits an infraction relating to alcohol, tobacco, drug, abuse, cheating, deceit, disrespect, flagrant curfew / “off limits” areas violations, as well as aiding and abetting any of the above, the following shall apply: (4/05)."

"g. Other Individual School’s Consequences: Depending on the severity and specifics of the infraction, individual IASAS schools may levy other consequences as per their school policy/handbooks, eg. out-of-school suspension, exclusion from all IASAS events for one year."

This demonstrates a couple significant points. Smoking, drinking of alcohol, and drug abuse of any kind is NOT tolerated by IASAS and TAS. The MCA's handbook warning students that they may face expulsion or suspension is merely a reflection of this point. This is not being "Christian Fundamentalist" as you pointed out. If you peruse many other school handbooks in America (for example, Philips Exeter and Philips Andover), you will find similar statements to MCA's school handbook. The expectation that MCA has on its students is not a reflection of the Christian spirit at the school, it is merely an expectation on the high quality of conduct that many private schools demand of their students. Many British boarding schools also enforce these rules (like Eton). Would you say they are "Christian Fundamentalist"? Or rather, they might just have a higher expectation of their students?

Besides, it is not true that a "puff or one drink" could get you expelled at Morrison. Morrison Academy, like I just pointed out with many other schools, expect highly of its students. Even this year, a group of nine individuals in the high school had been caught smoking and drinking on a school activity. However, they had not been expelled by the school. Your "image" of Morrison as a hellhole of sadistic Christian teachers is completely unfounded and only exists in your imagination. Chrissu 08:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On Your Dissent of Religious Principles

"Confronting" is in no way a "strong" word as you pointed out. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "confronting" is "to cause to meet : bring face-to-face." The connotation that you suggested is this one, "to face especially in challenge." Morrison Academy is a dynamic institution that seeks to challenge students in their views. This is NOT the negative connotation of "intolerant" as you pointed out. What you are expressing is an exaggeration of the literal value of words. Now, if the handbook read, "Morrison Academy coerces" or "Morrison Academy enforces," then your claims are valid. Morrison does not try to force religious dogma down students' throats, as I had pointed out before. You are free to believe in what you believe and the school community does not "ostracize" or "bully" you as you have pointed out in your previous "school culture" section. Inevitably you will be presented with views of Christianity, but does the school force all students to sign a pledge or recite a statement that declares they are Christians? Does the school reject student applications on the basis of their religion? I do not understand why you harbor such a resentment against the Morrison community.

Because the school is founded on a Christian basis, it is reasonable that Morrison expects certain criterion of its students. However, here, you must determine between the radical "Fundamental Christian" sect that you are referring to and general mainstream Christianity. Just because Morrison presents guidelines on student work is no grounds for labelling the school as the fanatical "Fundamental Christian" sect. As in many other Christian schools over the world (Faith Academy, Sacred Heart, Wheaton College, Calvin College, Bethel College...and others), it is reasonable to expect that the school will issue some standards regarding the use of the name of God in their publications. This is part of the workings of a Christian school and the article had already been appropriately labeled as such. The Morrison article does not claim to be representing a non-secular international school when it isn't. However, you need to distinguish between the difference of a "Christian" and a "Fundamentalist Christian" school.
 * On Your Dissent on Guidelines for Student Work

Once again, Morrison Academy does not enforce or coerce students to abide by these guidelines. Notice the word "should be," rather than "demands," or "requires," or "mandatory." You pointed out also the clauses "drinking" and "smoking." I ask you, which Christian school in the world do students submit papers on the "focus[ing] on or encourag[ing of]" drugs, alcohol, or tobacco? This is not an exception that Morrison is following here. By labelling Morrison as "Christian Fundamentalist," you are claiming that the school does not tolerate any mention of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco in any student publication. This is not true. Student papers on those topics had been submitted, and this guideline merely asks students not to submit papers that encourage these practices. This is not fanatical Christianity -- it is common sense. If you endorse the practice of drugs, alcohol, and smoking excessively in your student work, you may even be subject to censorship by the school officials in public school districts in America. Morrison is not straying away from the beaten path.

Moreover, you seem to suggest that alcohol, smoking, and drugs are taboo subjects at Morrison and eternal damnation befalls those that commit such heinous acts. This is not true. Many staff members drink in their off time. Morrison does not reject teachers just because they drink alcohol. Now, if Morrison was truly a Fundamental Christian school, do you think this would still be tolerated? Do you think that students could still be discussing evolution and abortion in Biology class? Do you think agnostic or atheist students could still be attending the school? Chrissu 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

it is MORRISON ACADEMY--there is no "Christian"
The name of the school is MORRISON ACADEMY. It is created by an organization named "Morrison Christian Association." That is where the acronym MCA comes from. Look at the official school seal. it says "Morrison Academy." This is a confusion between the acronym "MCA" and that school name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.212.46 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Your point was noted and it was checked with the administration. I have returned the page back to the "Morrison Academy" main page and fixed all other redirects accordingly. Chrissu 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3 Articles in one
After reading this article, I was confused that 3 articles about different campuses were merged into one article. I think we can split these three sections into three different articles? Kaob1 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Creation science"
added a paragraph about Morrison Academy's "Creation Science" curriculum and commented in the edit summary: "According to Wiki rules, primary sources may be used if used carefully, e.g., one is merely describing what the source stated and not injecting interpretation." True. However, that's not what happens here. None of the primary sources even mentions "Creation Science"; none of them say the Academy is "incorporating religion into its science curriculum" (or anything to that effect, unless we interpret it that way; the most I found was a line about knowing the "evidence supporting a Christian view of the diversity of life"). There's also the issue of cherry-picking and undue weight. If we actually read their science curriculum, creationism is at most a small part (compare e.g. AP Biology (p. 50): "Big Idea 1: The process of evolution drives the diversity and unity of life. Essential Knowledge: [...] 1.C.1: Speciation and extinction have occurred throughout the Earth's history." - no religion of any kind there). The so-called "secondary source" added by CensoredDog is even worse; it's a blog's comment thread (not a secondary source, not reliable), and even if it were reliable, it doesn't so much as mention Morrison Academy's science curriculum or anything about the school at all beyond the commenter calling it "very American, very Christian". I'll remove the paragraph again. Huon (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * While I'm at it I'll also remove the LGBT paragraph that's based on a former employee's opinion piece. That's not how we write encyclopedia articles. Huon (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"True. However, that's not what happens here. None of the primary sources even mentions "Creation Science"; none of them say the Academy is "incorporating religion into its science curriculum" (or anything to that effect, unless we interpret it that way; the most I found was a line about knowing the "evidence supporting a Christian view of the diversity of life")."

Perhaps you should read more carefully. The science curriculum guide explicitly states that "students will recognize God as creator." The word "God" was mentioned 75 times. An entire page about the "Biblical Worldview" and a reiteration of God as the creator there. The Bible curriculum guide reconfirms a creationist view by stating "Consistent with Scripture and historic Christian belief, Morrison Academy insists that God made the universe."

"The so-called "secondary source" added by CensoredDog is even worse; it's a blog's comment thread (not a secondary source, not reliable), and even if it were reliable, it doesn't so much as mention Morrison Academy's science curriculum or anything about the school at all beyond the commenter calling it "very American, very Christian"."

Yes, but as I mentioned earlier, I added it because you wanted a secondary source.

"While I'm at it I'll also remove the LGBT paragraph that's based on a former employee's opinion piece. That's not how we write encyclopedia articles."

This is a good point, but there is another primary source cited earlier that explicitly states the school's stance on LGBT-related issues, including termination of employment, etc. I think that constitutes anti-LGBT.

CensoredDog (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I may not have explicitly said so, I wanted (and Wikipedia requires) a reliable secondary source. Firstly a random person's comment on the internet is anything but a reliable source. Secondly it's the opinion of a former student at the school, so it's not a secondary source either but a primary one. And thirdly, it doesn't say what you cite it for.
 * Citing tbe Bible curriculum guide for whatever Morrison Academy does regarding science is useless. Maybe the English Literature curriculum mentions the importance of Shakespeare; could we then conclude that Morrison Academy inserts Shakespeare in the science curriculum? Obviously not. Now the science curriculum guide indeed talks of God and other religious concepts quite a bit. The actual curriculum, as explained in that guide, largely doesn't, though.
 * Even if those primary sources actually said what's claimed here, there would still be an issue of undue weight. We shouldn't pick out and highlight pieces of the primary source that we consider important.
 * Regarding LGBT, at "I think" you're beyond the scope of "describing what the source states" and into interpretation. You're also (as with the creationism issue) cherry-picking those parts of the personnel policy that you find important. Why not highlight their opposition to, say, bestiality, harassment, pornography, profanity or divorce instead? Divorce at least gets its own sub-section in the policy whereas LGB conduct is bunched together in one sentence with lots of other conduct Morrison finds objectionable (trans gets a little more space, but still less than divorce). The criticism by the former employee is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article unless there's a (reliable!) secondary source reporting on it. I'm sure I could find some former Harvard employee that has published bad things about Harvard's undue elitism; that doesn't mean such criticism should become part of the Wikipedia article on Harvard. The same holds here. Huon (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"Citing tbe Bible curriculum guide for whatever Morrison Academy does regarding science is useless. Maybe the English Literature curriculum mentions the importance of Shakespeare; could we then conclude that Morrison Academy inserts Shakespeare in the science curriculum?" That is a false analogy. In the first case we have a Bible curriculum guide delving into science. In your English Literature scenario, we have an English literature class talking about Shakespeare, which is English literature. In the former we have a subject P encroaching upon another subject Q, and P and Q are, outside of graduate-level philosophical discussions, better left separate. In the latter, you have a subject P delving into subject P. The Bible curriculum guide was put there for context and an understanding of the school's stance and ethos.

"Regarding LGBT, at "I think" you're beyond the scope of "describing what the source states" and into interpretation. You're also (as with the creationism issue) cherry-picking those parts of the personnel policy that you find important. Why not highlight their opposition to, say, bestiality, harassment, pornography, profanity or divorce instead? Divorce at least gets its own sub-section in the policy whereas LGB conduct is bunched together in one sentence with lots of other conduct Morrison finds objectionable (trans gets a little more space, but still less than divorce)."

I will very gladly add those things if you'd like. We have no disagreement here.

In response to your statement that "the science curriculum guide indeed talks of God and other religious concepts quite a bit. The actual curriculum, as explained in that guide, largely doesn't, though,"

What, do you mean, by the "actual curriculum"? To be charitable, I can only assume you are talking about pages 9 and 10, where one can find a table listing the "Scope and Sequence for Elementary and Middle School" and the "Scope and Sequence for High School" as well as the overviews between pages 13 and 16. That's 6 pages out of 63 in a document labeled "Science curriculum guide." Now, that seems like cherry-picking to me.

To make it clear that I am not cherry picking, I tried to list every instance in which the word "God" appears in the "Science curriculum guide" (and failed because I'd be flooding this page).

And here, a quote on page 5 that seems to contradicts what you asserted:

"How one perceives the physical universe directly impacts one’s worldview. Christians who hold a biblical worldview sees God at work in the origins and continuance of the universe and of life itself (Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17). As God’s creation, man is accountable for stewardship of the earth through discovery and innovation (Genesis 1:28). A science curriculum that carries the hallmark of being rooted in a biblical worldview will therefore feature a deep commitment to an interaction between science and faith where God has priority in our thinking." Page 3: God's creation "Morrison recognizes the universe as God’s special creation and seeks to equip students to fulfill God’s mandate (Gen 1:28)."

Page 3: The Scientific Process "Science, as exemplified in the scientific method, is a process that enables all mankind to gain knowledge about creation, the laws that govern it, and the character of God. The end result of this process would be for each student to understand, appreciate, and be a good steward of God’s creation."

Page 4: Vision for our science learners: Moral and Ethical Citizen "Students will recognize the moral truths established by God as it pertains to the application of science and technology ... Students will have a moral and ethical base from which to decide how or whether to pursue scientific research / technology and how to apply what is discovered"

"Spiritual Discerner" "1. Students will recognize God as creator. 2. Students will recognize God's qualities through the natural world. (Rom. 1:20) 3. Students will understand that natural laws in science point them toward an understanding of God. 4. Students will accept their self-worth as God’s creation."

"Wise and Responsible Steward" "1. Students will recognize man's role in governing the natural world, as commissioned by God. 2. Students will take responsibility for the care of God’s creation (personal health, the community, and the world)."

Page 5: "Biblical Worldview"

"How one perceives the physical universe directly impacts one’s worldview. Christians who hold a biblical worldview sees God at work in the origins and continuance of the universe and of life itself (Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17). As God’s creation, man is accountable for stewardship of the earth through discovery and innovation (Genesis 1:28). A science curriculum that carries the hallmark of being rooted in a biblical worldview will therefore feature a deep commitment to an interaction between science and faith where God has priority in our thinking."

"1. Center their thinking on the authority of the biblical revelation. ● God is the Creator, a rational and intelligent Person ● Faith in God forms the basis for our belief system and lifestyle ● Careful investigation of Creation is encouraged and reveals the mind of God ● Scriptural truth matches scientific knowledge ● Encourage respectful discussion among those of differing worldviews ● Know that bias is a human problem and not a religious one"

Page 15: Biology. On God's "design" and the "meaning of life" This introductory course makes science more relevant for students and lays a foundation for future biology courses. It is the study of living things with comparisons of the basic animal and plant taxon. Life processes will be studied as they apply to plants, animals, and humans. Class content gives the students a broad grasp of the meaning of life, and creation in God’s design.

Page 17: An introduction on theism vs. naturalism ... and then an endorsement of theism and argument from design (emphasis theirs) "In our culture, there are two basic positions regarding ultimate reality and thus the origin of the universe. (Here and below, universe, world, and nature are used to refer to the sum total of all matter and energy in existence.) The first position is theism, which holds that the universe results from the action of a purposive supernatural being (God). The second position is naturalism, the belief that matter and energy are all that exist, or at least all that affect events in the universe. Naturalism holds that undirected, purposeless natural processes have accidentally resulted in the existence and characteristics of everything."

"Christian orthodoxy has always held that the God of the Bible is the ultimate cause of the universe around us; thus all Christians agree that God made everything. (The term Christian is used here to denote those who believe that the Bible is inspired—God’s supernatural revelation to mankind—and who believe the historic creeds of the Christian church.) Christians agree that God made everything because the Bible clearly and repeatedly says so (e.g., Genesis 1:1, Exodus 4:11 & 20:11, Job 38:4, Proverbs 3:19, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 32:17, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10, Revelation 14:7, and many other places). Christians also find support for this conviction from science. The more scientists learn about the structure and function of the universe, the more we appreciate the degree to which it is just right for the existence of human life."

'''Consistent with Scripture and historic Christian belief, Morrison Academy insists that God made the universe.''' The school teaches that the universe does not exist by accident, and that the better we understand its structure and function (which is the goal of science), the more impressed we will become with its Maker (Psalm 19:1, Proverbs 3:19).

Page 17: God made everything "It is important to recognize that while Christians agree that God made everything, we do not agree about exactly how and when God did it. The most obvious reason is that the Bible speaks much less clearly and frequently about how and when God made everything, than of the fact that He did so. As a result, Christians reach different conclusions about what God is saying regarding the timing and method of creation. Christians also differ in their awareness of relevant scientific data, and in their convictions regarding how such data should be used to clarify their understanding of the Bible."

Page 18: School leaves different views open to the student as long as God is in there.

Page 19: On "theistic evolution." The school makes an assertion about creationism. "Note that the evolution–creation debate is not about whether creatures change, but about how far natural changes can go. Creationists agree with microevolution but disagree with macroevolution."

Pages 20-21: on Young-earth vs. New earth creationism

Page 59: A whole page on the "Biblical Principles of Science" and many instances of "God"

That's at least 12 pages about God, literally 20% of the document spread across pages 3 to 59 in a 63-page document labeled "Science Curriculum Guide." I don't think this constitutes cherry picking.

CensoredDog (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * : Recent Morrison alumni here, just trying to provide a third opinion on the issue. As far as I remember, all science courses are approached from a Christian viewpoint that God created everything. Our science curriculum is required to teach a Biblical perspective as to the creation of the universe alongside a Darwinist perspective but allows for interpretation as to how exacly God created everything (it depends on how literally you take the Bible). Students are encouraged to but not coerced to accept the creationist viewpoint.


 * I wouldn't go so far as to call the curriculum "creation science" since that term does imply a very literal interpretation of the Bible. The curriculum guide does say this:


 * "Morrison chooses not to take an official position on either question. We emphasize that God made everything, but we do not require or expect students to accept a particular view of how or when God did it."


 * Meanwhile, the Wikipedia page for creation science says:


 * "The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo" (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000–10,000 years; the belief that humans and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth."


 * I think the problem here is that the CensoredDog's text just needs to be carefully reworded. The primary sources are fine as of WP:PRIMARYCARE, which say that it is acceptable for "what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities" (in which company is the same as organization). The forum post is not a reliable secondary source and should not be referred to (see WP:UGC). Remember to be very literal with the primary sources and only include on the Wikipedia page what is explicitely said in the documents, and include page numbers in the citations themselves. I would do this myself but that would probably constitute as a conflict of interest. If you need to, I'll be happy to provide more personal annecdotes. ◢ Ganbaruby!  14:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

- It's delightful to see that someone who seems so close to the issue can remain so objective. To clarify - I had thought about using the word "creationism" instead, but, since I thought that "creation science" sounded more euphemistic and is synonymous with "creationism," I went with "creation science" to avoid offending anyone. Now, I see I'm mistaken. "Creationism" is the more proper term because it encompasses both young-earth and old-earth views. I would be very happy to hear your anecdotes and thoughts on these issues. Also, if you could find evidence to back up your anecdotes, that would be great. Lastly, I agree that the secondary source you mentioned is not adequate. I also agree completely with your view on primary sources and assumed it was common sense for all others. About more carefully wording things -- also agree. To me, deleting everything is rarely warranted. I will make minor changes, but will have to get some sleep so I can reword things even better and gradually add to the article. Keep me posted, thanks. CensoredDog (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I try to do my best to keep my personal view out of Wikipedia. I agree that "creationism" is a better word to use in this context, and I remember old-earth vs. new-earth creationism being inside the curriculum of one of my Biblical studies courses. However, it will be tricky to find reliable, published secondary sources simply because Morrison is such a small school. I can dig up past syllabuses or assignments, but that wouldn't be a good source to cite because of privacy concerns and it is a self-published source and would violate #4 and likely #5 as well. Morrison did start using Wheaton Press' curriculum recently but teachers don't follow the textbooks very closely, so that probably doesn't help much for you. I think your best bet would be to use the primary sources you found and summarize what it says. I look forward to reading what you write next. ◢ Ganbaruby!  16:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with the current version of either the "science" or (recently renamed) "LGBT and Marriage" sections. There are multiple reasons:
 * The WP:NPOV issues are not resolved. If we ignore for argument's sake that we should use secondary sources, we don't even accurately and neutrally summarize what the primary sources say. Rather we cherry-pick what CensoredDog thinks prospective students and employees should be aware of. That's pushing a specific point of view, something we shouldn't do.
 * After the latest rewrite we still make use of sources that are clearly inappropriate, such as an ex-employee's opinion piece. Citing the Bible curriculum guide for the science curriculum is also not an appropriate use of primary sources.
 * The line about "incorporating religion into its science curriculum" is CensoredDog's interpretation of primary sources; I doubt Morrison Academy would agree with that.
 * If we want to summarize their science curriculum, we should do just that. There's no word about the actual science curriculum in the section on "science". Better yet, we should summarize what reliable third-party sources report on the school, and that's largely that their sports teams, the Morrison Academy Mustangs, compete with other international schools in East Asia (see e.g., , ). There are also some books that might be of value; as far as I can tell, none mention "creationism", "divorce", "gay marriage" or "LGBT". It appears CensoredDog's assessment of what prospective students and employees should be aware of disagrees with that of published authors. Huon (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

REPLY "The WP:NPOV issues are not resolved. If we ignore for argument's sake that we should use secondary sources, we don't even accurately and neutrally summarize what the primary sources say. Rather we cherry-pick what CensoredDog thinks prospective students and employees should be aware of. That's pushing a specific point of view, something we shouldn't do." You've asked me to add the academy's content about other issues, e.g., divorce. I did. You also mentioned bestiality--which I didn't add, because it doesn't seem like a school rule that needs to be reiterated. If you think I'm cherry picking by leaving out other content, you are welcome to add such content. On the primary source issue, you are repeatedly making the assertion that a secondary source is necessary, when I and another user have given you arguments for why it is not necessary in this case.

"After the latest rewrite we still make use of sources that are clearly inappropriate, such as an ex-employee's opinion piece." This is an assertion. Not an argument.

"Citing the Bible curriculum guide for the science curriculum is also not an appropriate use of primary sources." You gave a false analogy regarding Shakespeare earlier to make this point. I explained why it was a false analogy. You have yet to respond to me with a counterargument and are merely repeating an assertion. If there is good reason to remove that source, then we can remove the source without altering the paragraph.

"The line about "incorporating religion into its science curriculum" is CensoredDog's interpretation of primary sources; I doubt Morrison Academy would agree with that." I have told you why it is not merely my interpretation of primary sources with the use of plenty of evidence from the Science Curriculum Guide. You have yet to address my objections, and you are again reiterating an assertion. Furthermore, another user seems to agree with me on this one. You have yet to address his or her points. Whether "Morrison Academy would agree with that" is beside the point.

CensoredDog (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You also mentioned bestiality--which I didn't add, because it doesn't seem like a school rule that needs to be reiterated. - So you add those rules that you think need reiterating instead of neutrally summarizing what the document says, much less what independent sources say. That is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE, even if the document were an appropriate source for Wikipedia at all.
 * Regarding primary vs. secondary sources, the policy is clear: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" - that's what's happening here.
 * Since I have to explain why a Bible curriculum guide is not an appropriate source for the science curriculum. It's because the source is not about the science curriculum, which isn't even mentioned in the source, and it doesn't confirm what it's cited for. That seems an excellent reason to not use that source.
 * You keep citing and quoting primary sources that don't say what you want to cite them for. None of the many quotes from the science curriculum guide says, "We teach religion in science class". That they incorporate religion into the science curriculum is not a straightforward descriptive statement of fact. Policy (same link as aboove): "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" - yours is such an evaluation and synthesis of material found in a primary source.
 * If wishes to propose a wording that complies with policy, particularly WP:UNDUE, I'd welcome that. In the meantime, I'll shorten the article so that it indeed becomes a neutral summary of what independent sources found worthy of reporting about the school. Huon (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Huon does bring up some good points. We need much more secondary sources not just for this section, but for the entire article. Also, I agree with him/her that the Anti-LGBT section does violate WP:UNDUE, since it isn't particularly significant with regards to the bigger picture. The athletics section should definitely be expanded with existing secondary sources.
 * Meanwhile, Morrison's approach to it's Biblical curriculum is an important part of its identity and should be included. Instead of a "science" section, I propose that the section be titled "Biblical curriculum" or something similar. This section should talk about Morrison's Bible classes as a whole, including the creationist view. This part will cite the Biblical curriculum guide and should not involve any other subjects or their respective curriculum guides. Then, a sentence saying "Other subject areas, including science and social studies, are taught to integrate Biblical principles" or another sentence to a similar effect. Most Morrison curriculum guides do have a "Biblical integration" section, so no intepretation was used here. I do realize that this section will be largely based on primary sources, but I believe this should be allowed. The section about businesses/organizations in WP:PRIMARYCARE does allow for talking about "the most basic facts", which this paragraph should be doing. In my opinion, in the abscence of secondary sources, using primary sources for such an important topic is acceptable. ◢ Ganbaruby!  17:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Addressing Four Objections Raised By Huon I will attempt to outline the main objections that Huon has raised in our discussion and address each one again.

 (1) Absence of secondary sources 

Secondary sources are desirable, I agree. I believe the productive thing to do is for us to look for more reliable secondary sources. As Ganbaruby mentioned, Morrison Academy is a small school and thus finding reliable secondary sources may be difficult. This only means that we should look harder for secondary sources and does not entail deletion of primary sources or other content (see point 3a)

 (2) Use of primary sources 

I hope that this matter is settled once and for all.

First, if it is true that an entire article should not be based on primary sources, then, a fortiori, an article should not be based on no sources at all.

Second, Ganbaruby has repeatedly made good points about why primary sources are desirable in this article. I agree with his/her point that "in the abscence of secondary sources, using primary sources for such an important topic is acceptable." But a question remains - what constitutes an important topic? This leads us to (3).

Third - interpretation. Huon claims that I am injecting my interpretation by stating that Morrison Academy teaches creationism and incorporates religion into its curriculum. I say that I am not. A 63-page document entitled "Science Curriculum Guide" which mentions the word "God" 75 times as well as the words "creation" 50 times, "created" 9 times (in the context "God created"), and "creationist" 19 times, and which unequivocally states that "Consistent with Scripture and historic Christian belief, Morrison Academy insists that God made the universe" is creationist. When I wrote that "Morrison Academy teaches creationism, incorporating religion into its science curriculum," that was a paraphrase (and a quite parsimonious, 10-word paraphrase to boot). The only other thing I could do is to put in a bunch of quotations. To avoid objections exactly like this one, that was exactly what I did at first, but other users have rightfully objected to that.

 (3) Undue weight  If an undue weight is placed on one or more subjects, then there are two ways we may consider: (a) Deleting things that have undue weight. (b) adding other contents that should have more weight. Three issues remain in (3).

Issue 1 is whether there is undue weight put on LGBT/marriage and/or science. Huon's answer is yes. My answer is a qualified both yes and no (see Issue 3).

Issue 2 is, assuming that undue weight is put on LGBT/marriage and/or science, should we (a) completely delete things that have undue weight or (b) add other contents that have more weight? Huon seems to propose (a), but I prefer (b). This is where we fundamentally disagree.

Issue 3 is whether one sentence (16 words) on LGBT/divorce and one sentence (10 words) on creationism constitutes "undue weight." Huon's answer is 'no'. Mine is both 'yes' and 'no'. Yes - because there are aspects of Morrison Academy such as Biblical studies, sports, etc. that are also important, according to Ganbaruby. No - because, well, that's literally 26 words in total on three different topics.

 (4) Cherry picking 

I have been accused by Huon of two types of cherry picking. For example, Huon states that I (a) only talk about LGBT issues in a document that talks about other things, or (b) only talk about religion and creationism in a science curriculum that talks about things other than religion and creationism. Now, one thing at a time.

About (a) only talking about LGBT issues in a document that talks about other things, such as marriage and bestiality. My reply is that, if, as Huon seems to be implying, talking about marriage, divorce, bestiality, etc., will mitigate the cherry picking, I will indulge Huon. And I did, adding divorce. I also explained why I left out the school rules about bestiality, but my explanation (done in good faith) led him/her to accuse me of injecting interpretation. This accusation carries no water. First, interpreting what a primary source says and publishing one's own interpretation is no good (see point (2) for more details). Second, interpreting what one thinks is important enough to be published is not only desirable, but necessary (otherwise, I'd have to publish literally everything, which is ludicrous). These are two types of interpretations, hence, a fallacy of equivocation. Thus, the accusation that my failure to mention that bestiality is against school rules (really? Is it really worth mentioning that a school prohibits sex with non-human animals?) is wholly beside the point and counterproductive for all of us.

 (5) My tentative conclusion 

To preserve harmony but not at the expense of objectivity, I promise that I will work hard to ensure that lots of other content not related to LGBT or creationism is added to the school page and look very hard for secondary sources so that our disagreements, stated clearly in the foregoing outline, can be resolved. However, given how hard I have tried to reason with Huon, who has merely reiterated, again and again, his/her already-refuted suggestion that secondary sources are absolutely necessary (and, it seems, the absence of which warrants, from his/her point of view, the deletion of only creationism and LGBT/marriage), and given that he/she has now deleted a huge chunk of what I believe is excellent content written by other users who have not been in our discussion at all, I will respectfully reverse his/her edit.

CensoredDog (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we may need some more formal dispute resolution here. The above is not at all "preserving harmony" but is a justification to edit-war to keep inappropriate content in the article. There's not a single argument based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines in all of the above. Both my and 's arguments are ignored or misinterpreted. To go through this one by one:+
 * I agree with all of point one (and, in fact, have looked for secondary sources and added four to the article before CensoredDog agreed that that was what we should do; he proceeded to remove one of them) except the last half sentence. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability says: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Re-adding unsourced content violates one of Wikipedia's core content policies; see also WP:BURDEN.
 * First, I agree that an article shouldn't based on no sources at all, which is why I removed (most of) the unsourced content and added reliable secondary sources. Second, there's a wide gulf between "desirable" and "acceptable". I fixed the absence of secondary sources that Ganbaruby mentioned. Ganbaruby also made a reasonable suggestion on how to deal with the curriculum. I'm going to implement that. Third, if you have to argue word counts, you're clearly analyzing the material in a primary source yourself, right after I quoted another of Wikipedia's core content policies that said you shouldn't do so.
 * On issue 2, if there were reliable secondary sources to add other content, I wouldn't object to that (but if those secondary sources don't mention the creationism or LGBT issues, it becomes ever more clear that we're putting undue weight on those topics). As long as secondary sources are scarce, we should be very careful in the use of primary sources. Under such circumstances, even 16 words on LGBT/divorce are too much; for comparison, the primary sources devote all of two words to homosexual and bisexual conduct, the same space (per issue) given to bestiality, incest, premarital sex and so on. Furthermore, the source is some rather obscure personnel policy, not one of Morrison Academy's central, most prominent position papers or the like. Highlighting a few words out of a 5,000-word policy, one of numerous documents that the Academy has produced, obviously is undue.
 * About (a), if you highlight a few words or a single paragraph out of a 5,000-word document, then yes, you're cherry-picking. I'm not implying that picking another few additional words will help at all. And yes, picking one word that you find important and leaving out another that you find unimportant is injecting interpretation. But interpreting what one thinks is important enough to be published is not only desirable, but necessary - not so, and if you had actually read WP:UNDUE (part of the third of our core content policies), you'd know why. The source considers it exactly as important and devotes as much space to prohibit bestiality as to prohibit homosexuality. You would only have to include everything, which indeed is ludicrous, if you wanted to reach a level of detail that allows you to talk about LGBT, which of course is what you wanted all along. It's not worth mentioning that they prohibit bestiality, and it's equally unworthy of mention that they prohibit homosexuality.
 * I above quoted WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly states that secondary sources are necessary. WP:UNDUE explains why, when we have secondary sources, we need to summarize what the sources say, with weight given to each issue in proportion to the weight given in the sources.
 * That said, the article also suffers copyright issues because parts are copy-pasted from the school website. I had fixed those issues when I removed most of the unsourced content (and the content based solely on primary sources); CensoredDog re-introduced those issues. I'll fix that again., please do not re-add copyright-infringing content.
 * Finally, there's one point we all seem to agree on: Basing criticism of the school on an ex-employee's opinion piece is not appropriate (CensoredDog: "good point"; Ganbaruby considered the entire LGBT issue undue weight). Now I'm apparently making "an assertion, not an argument" for repeating something we had already discussed and agreed on; WP:Identifying reliable sources has something to say about opinion pieces and gives the relevant argument (again). Furthermore, it's (once again) a primary source; when no secondary source has found this criticism worthy of mention, it's not an important aspect of he subject. Huon (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article and implemented Ganbaruby's suggestion regarding the curriculum. Now that all the unsourced filler is gone, it's obvious that having an "LGBT and marriage" section gives undue weight to a minor issue mentioned in passing in an obscure policy. The answer is not to add more obscure content (or to add the unsourced content back), but to remove that section. Of course CensoredDog is welcome to follow his announced plan of looking for additional secondary sources. Huon (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

REPLY to Huon from CensoredDog

I agree that we may need some formal dispute resolution here.
 * "I think we may need some more formal dispute resolution here."

Here you assert that I am not attempting to preserve harmony (thus assuming that I am not acting in good faith). You are also committing the fallacy of begging the question -- whether the content I have added is inappropriate is the issue under dispute. You have not provided an argument yet.
 * "The above is not at all "preserving harmony" but is a justification to edit-war to keep inappropriate content in the article."

This is patently false. To be sure, I did not post links to guidelines. But with practically every rule Huon cited or paraphrased (whether correctly or incorrectly), I have responded to Huon's concerns directly. See, for example, the BOLD Revert Discuss link Huon summarized on my user talk page. He/she states, "Wikipedia's stance is "Bold edit, revert, discuss" - that means that when your edits, such as the ones to Morrison Academy, get reverted, then a consensus should be established on the talk page, and you shouldn't just re-add the content (not even while the discussion is ongoing)." Huon's statement is deeply misleading and thus counterproductive. Wikipedia does not take an official stance on BOLD Revert Discuss. In fact, the very opening passage on that page states "The BOLD, revert, disuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." Even though I find it hard to believe how anyone can possibly have misinterpreted that line, I took Huon's words in good faith, and responded accordingly. I received no response from him/her.
 * "There's not a single argument based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines in all of the above."

With regards to rules regarding primary and secondary sources, Huon posted the link to the relevant Wikipedia page. Note that there is an entire section there entitled "Secondary does not mean good" and a subsection entitled "Primary does not mean bad." It just means we have to be careful. On multiple occasions I explained why primary sources are appropriate in this case, and removed a secondary source I added that Huon (rightfully) states is inadequate. I have received practically no well-developed argument as to why a secondary source written from the point of view of an ex-employee is no good. In fact, he/she simply makes the following assertion: "While I'm at it I'll also remove the LGBT paragraph that's based on a former employee's opinion piece. That's not how we write encyclopedia articles." At a later point, Huon writes, "The criticism by the former employee is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article unless there's a (reliable!) secondary source reporting on it. I'm sure I could find some former Harvard employee that has published bad things about Harvard's undue elitism; that doesn't mean such criticism should become part of the Wikipedia article on Harvard. The same holds here." The thing is that I never claimed that such a hypothetical article about Harvard's undue elitism should or should not be part of the Wikipedia article on Harvard. Nor are we entirely sure that the analogy Huon has given is apt. The aptness of this comparison is dubious for various reasons, but we may discuss that further if necessary lest we get driven off track by this red herring.

''If I am accused of ignoring or misinterpreting an argument, I'd like to know the reasons because those seem like quite serious accusations. I was not told that I was misinterpreting Ganbaruby's words at any point in this discussion, so I am frankly quite surprised by this accusation.
 * ''"Both my and 's arguments are ignored or misinterpreted."

I am genuinely unsure about which part of the article you are referring too, but I can assure you that if I did, I did so by accident. My actions were not taken in good faith. I have taken Ganbaruby's deletion of the LGBT/marriage and Science sections in good faith, attributing it to an accident in the edit summary, and I have taken your actions in good faith as well. I do not understand how this comes anywhere close to proving that I "ignored" or "misinterpreted" your and another user's arguments.
 * "To go through this one by one::I agree with all of point one (and, in fact, have looked for secondary sources and added four to the article before CensoredDog agreed that that was what we should do; he proceeded to remove one of them) except the last half sentence."

Again, a rule is taken out of context. The entire paragraph states: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." So, arguably, the rule is most literally applied to living people. Not schools. Lest I be accused of "misinterpreting," I quote a Wikipedia passage from dispute resolution, which Huon ought to be aware of since he/she posted the link on the talk page: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page."
 * "Wikipedia's policy on verifiability says: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Re-adding unsourced content violates one of Wikipedia's core content policies; see also WP:BURDEN."

I sincerely thank you for adding secondary sources, but this does not entail deleting the unsourced content (see reason above).
 * "First, I agree that an article shouldn't based on no sources at all, which is why I removed (most of) the unsourced content and added reliable secondary sources."

Yes, I agree too. What's the issue here?
 * "Second, there's a wide gulf between 'desirable' and 'acceptable'."

Ganbaruby has explicitly stated that "in the abscence of secondary sources, using primary sources for such an important topic is acceptable." He/she never claimed that it is a problem to be fixed (see Identifying and Using Primary Sources: esp. "Secondary does not mean 'good'" and "Primary does not mean 'bad'"). This is every word that Ganbaruby typed in the course of our discussion.
 * "I fixed the absence of secondary sources that Ganbaruby mentioned."

From Ganbaruby: "I think the problem here is that the CensoredDog's text just needs to be carefully reworded. The primary sources are fine as of WP:PRIMARYCARE, which say that it is acceptable for "what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities" (in which company is the same as organization). The forum post is not a reliable secondary source and should not be referred to (see WP:UGC). Remember to be very literal with the primary sources and only include on the Wikipedia page what is explicitely said in the documents, and include page numbers in the citations themselves. I would do this myself but that would probably constitute as a conflict of interest. If you need to, I'll be happy to provide more personal annecdotes."

From Ganbaruby: "@CensoredDog: Thanks, I try to do my best to keep my personal view out of Wikipedia. I agree that "creationism" is a better word to use in this context, and I remember old-earth vs. new-earth creationism being inside the curriculum of one of my Biblical studies courses. However, it will be tricky to find reliable, published secondary sources simply because Morrison is such a small school. I can dig up past syllabuses or assignments, but that wouldn't be a good source to cite because of privacy concerns and it is a self-published source and would violate #4 and likely #5 as well. Morrison did start using Wheaton Press' curriculum recently but teachers don't follow the textbooks very closely, so that probably doesn't help much for you. I think your best bet would be to use the primary sources you found and summarize what it says. I look forward to reading what you write next."

From Ganbaruby: "Meanwhile, Morrison's approach to it's Biblical curriculum is an important part of its identity and should be included. Instead of a "science" section, I propose that the section be titled "Biblical curriculum" or something similar. This section should talk about Morrison's Bible classes as a whole, including the creationist view. This part will cite the Biblical curriculum guide and should not involve any other subjects or their respective curriculum guides. Then, a sentence saying "Other subject areas, including science and social studies, are taught to integrate Biblical principles" or another sentence to a similar effect. Most Morrison curriculum guides do have a "Biblical integration" section, so no intepretation was used here. I do realize that this section will be largely based on primary sources, but I believe this should be allowed. The section about businesses/organizations in WP:PRIMARYCARE does allow for talking about "the most basic facts", which this paragraph should be doing. In my opinion, in the abscence of secondary sources, using primary sources for such an important topic is acceptable."

I never explicitly agreed or disagreed with Ganbaruby on this particular issue because I was still thinking about the matter. Why not have a Bible section and a science section both? Just a thought.
 * "Ganbaruby also made a reasonable suggestion on how to deal with the curriculum. I'm going to implement that."

I fail to see how referring to word counts to make a discuss whether there is undue burden has anything to do with inappropriately interpreting a primary source. Nowhere in the Wiki about primary sources, which is a primary source itself, states that "word counts constitute inappropriate interpretation" or a paraphrastic equivalent.
 * "Third, if you have to argue word counts, you're clearly analyzing the material in a primary source yourself, right after I quoted another of Wikipedia's core content policies that said you shouldn't do so."

Primary and secondary sources again. I know you won't object to reliable secondary sources. But see above.
 * "On issue 2, if there were reliable secondary sources to add other content, I wouldn't object to that (but if those secondary sources don't mention the creationism or LGBT issues, it becomes ever more clear that we're putting undue weight on those topics)."

Yes, we should be careful. I agree. The problem is that I think that I'm careful enough. You do not. And I gave you my reasons already. I also told you why I left out bestiality because practically no one in his or her right mind would think that a ban on bestiality (or incest) in a school setting is worth mentioning. You then accused me of interpreting a primary source. If that constitutes inappropriate interpretation of a primary source, then I am at a loss for words.
 * "As long as secondary sources are scarce, we should be very careful in the use of primary sources. Under such circumstances, even 16 words on LGBT/divorce are too much; for comparison, the primary sources devote all of two words to homosexual and bisexual conduct, the same space (per issue) given to bestiality, incest, premarital sex and so on."

First, then, show me what other "prominent position papers or the like" are, and I will incorporate them into the article on Morrison Academy. Second, whether the personnel policy is "obscure" (that's debatable) has no bearing on whether it is relevant to readers.
 * "Furthermore, the source is some rather obscure personnel policy, not one of Morrison Academy's central, most prominent position papers or the like."

Again, if you are certain that there are "numerous documents that the Academy has produced," especially ones that are of greater importance, please let me know and I will incorporate them in the article.
 * "Highlighting a few words out of a 5,000-word policy, one of numerous documents that the Academy has produced, obviously is undue."

If you would like me to add way more than "another few additional words," please highlight the sections that you think are more important (and explain why), and I will be as cooperative as I can.
 * "About (a), if you highlight a few words or a single paragraph out of a 5,000-word document, then yes, you're cherry-picking. I'm not implying that picking another few additional words will help at all."

Then, again, which parts of the document are more important? And by how much? Please explain.
 * "And yes, picking one word that you find important and leaving out another that you find unimportant is injecting interpretation."

No. I don't know why. And yes, I read it. And nowhere in Reliable Sources and Undue Weight-- again, a primary source itself, by the way -- does it say anything about how one ought to think about this homosexuality/bestiality problem.
 * "But interpreting what one thinks is important enough to be published is not only desirable, but necessary - not so, and if you had actually read WP:UNDUE (part of the third of our core content policies), you'd know why. The source considers it exactly as important and devotes as much space to prohibit bestiality as to prohibit homosexuality."

I carefully chose the word "LGBT" so that it is broad. And that was also one of many reasons why I did not write about the issue in greater detail. I don't see how any of this constitutes a "level of detail" that will require me to "include everything." Furthermore, I'm not sure what justification you have for assuming that what "I wanted all along" was to "reach a level of detail that allows [me] to talk about LGBT."
 * "You would only have to include everything, which indeed is ludicrous, if you wanted to reach a level of detail that allows you to talk about LGBT, which of course is what you wanted all along."

Again, this is a claim, not an argument.
 * "It's not worth mentioning that they prohibit bestiality, and it's equally unworthy of mention that they prohibit homosexuality."

Yes, and I explained this earlier when I typed: "So, arguably, the rule is most literally applied to living people. Not schools. Lest I be accused of "misinterpreting," I quote a Wikipedia passage from dispute resolution, which Huon ought to be aware of since he/she posted the link on the talk page: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page."
 * ":#I above quoted WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly states that secondary sources are necessary. WP:UNDUE explains why, when we have secondary sources, we need to summarize what the sources say, with weight given to each issue in proportion to the weight given in the sources."

Agreed.
 * "That said, the article also suffers copyright issues because parts are copy-pasted from the school website."

Am I being accused of deliberately introducing "copyright-infringing content"? If that is the case, then that is again an unwarranted assumption, not an argument. It is also a serious accusation and leads me to believe that good faith was not assumed by Huon.
 * "I had fixed those issues when I removed most of the unsourced content (and the content based solely on primary sources); CensoredDog re-introduced those issues. I'll fix that again., please do not re-add copyright-infringing content."

No - I do not agree that basing criticism of the school on an ex-employee's opinion piece is not appropriate. Again, Huon has yet to say why he thinks it is inappropriate. In fact, Wikipedia's page on reliable sources states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * "Finally, there's one point we all seem to agree on: Basing criticism of the school on an ex-employee's opinion piece is not appropriate (CensoredDog: "good point"; Ganbaruby considered the entire LGBT issue undue weight)."

Yes. On this matter, I quote again from Wikipedia: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * "Now I'm apparently making "an assertion, not an argument" for repeating something we had already discussed and agreed on; WP:Identifying reliable sources has something to say about opinion pieces and gives the relevant argument (again)."

This is, again, an assertion, not an argument.
 * "Furthermore, it's (once again) a primary source; when no secondary source has found this criticism worthy of mention, it's not an important aspect of he subject."

I am not opposed to a Bible section. I am opposed to deleting a "science" section. Again, I quote Wikipedia guidelines on Dispute Resolution: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral."
 * "I have edited the article and implemented Ganbaruby's suggestion regarding the curriculum."

That's because you did not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines on Dispute Resolution: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral."
 * "Now that all the unsourced filler is gone, it's obvious that having an "LGBT and marriage" section gives undue weight to a minor issue mentioned in passing in an obscure policy."

This is an assertion, not an argument.
 * "The answer is not to add more obscure content (or to add the unsourced content back), but to remove that section."

I am actively looking for secondary sources, yes. Again, see "secondary does not mean 'good'" and "primary does not mean 'bad'".
 * "Of course CensoredDog is welcome to follow his announced plan of looking for additional secondary sources."

Just a friendly reminder: Please let's focus on the content of the article and not editor conduct, according to dispute resolution guidelines. CensoredDog (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Woah woah woah, everybody take a deep breath here.


 * First of all, I don't think I've properly apologized for accidentally deleting CensoredDog's sections a while back while removing the MAK section. That was a mistake on my part, and I'm thankful that you realized my mistake, restored the section, and showed me understanding.


 * We've seemed to come to the consensus that Morrison's curriculum guides are acceptable primary sources to be used in sections talking about courses in those sections. Secondary sources would be better, but considering the unlikelihood of independent sources publishing about a school's curriculum and my arguments for primary source usage above, the current version of the article should have no problem.


 * The biggest issue on this page right now is regarding the LGBT section and whether that section should be inside this article at all. This dispute should take priority in all future discussions. Consider: Is the issue of LGBT important enough to Morrison that its inclusion helps readers better understand the nature of the school? Personally, I agree with Huon and think not but for a different reason. Readers are here to find out the school history, Bible curriculum, sports, and other general information; they are not here for detailed school policy. The same goes for hypothetical sections about bestiality and divorce or other trivial policy sections: they don't belong here. If this were a big controversy that is well-documented by reliable secondary sources, then maybe it will be notable enough for this page.


 * Meanwhile, CensoredDog added a math curriculum section, which violates WP:IINFO, which states that not every single piece of information belongs on Wikipedia. A listing of what math concept is taught to what grade seems trivial for this page, especially since Morrison's math curriculum is not unique to this school. Therefore, I have removed the section. The course listing in the science section could also suffer from the same problem, but I've left that in because I am unsure whether the problem there is serious enough. ◢ Ganbaruby!  14:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

REPLY FROM CensoredDog to Ganbaruby I do disagree about the importance of the LGBT/divorce section, but also for a different reason (I think that ought to be discussed in a new section I/you/we have yet to create). With that said, I find the vast majority of what you stated to be eminently sensible and reasonable. I apologize for violating the rules by posting the math content. I, too, was wary of adding the math section for the reason that it is pretty much the same as any other school's, but I did not know that I was violating rules until you informed me (I'm a newb). Thank you! CensoredDog (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have read CensoredDog's long text. We have now progressed from not making arguments based on Wikipedia's policies to arguing by misapplying those policies. I don't have the time to address all the 20k worth of content that CensoredDog posted, so I'll focus on the policy quotes that were highlighted. One is from WP:DR and apparently brought up to argue that I shouldn't have removed all the unsourced content. The problem with that argument is that the quote speaks of salvageable content. What I removed wasn't salvageable. I looked for sources and found none that would have allowed me to improve that content short of removing it. You disagree? Prove it. Another quote is from WP:RS and states that sources may be opinionated and/or biased and still be acceptable. I don't quite see how that's relevant; the source in question is an opinion piece, but the problem with that source is not that it's opinionated or biased. The problem is that it's not a reliable source for facts in the first place. (And while it might arguably be considered a reliable source for the author's opinion, that's a viewpoint [...] held by an extremely small minority of one non-independent person, which should not be covered at all.) Finally, there's WP:Identifying and using primary sources which is used to argue that primary sources aren't all bad. True but irrelevant; CensoredDog does not make a case why these primary sources are appropriate. The specific examples of how primary sources may be used in the context of a business don't cover "dig in the employment policy and highlight what might be grounds for firing, but choose only those grounds you find important".
 * Since it's unlikely that we'll reach an agreement on what WP:NPOV requires here, I'll bring this page up at WP:NPOVN for more community input. Huon (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Huon from CensoredDog

First, yes, I hate writing long texts as well. I wanted to make sure nothing is put out of context. Second, it is regrettable that you don't have time to address "all the 20k worth of content that [I] posted," because I will address every objection you raise to the best of my ability. And third, large chunks of what I posted are my quoting you, so, because you are in an odd sense a co-author, I believe it ought not be too difficult a read. Lastly, I look forward to seeing how you think policies are misapplied.
 * "We have now progressed from not making arguments based on Wikipedia's policies to arguing by misapplying those policies. I don't have the time to address all the 20k worth of content that CensoredDog posted, so I'll focus on the policy quotes that were highlighted."

I haven't agreed or disagreed with anything on this passage yet, so I don't have the burden of proof on this particular matter so far. Thus, the "you disagree? Prove it" line is beside the point. You, however, claim that the content removed wasn't "salvageable." You also claimed that, so far, there are "[no sources] that would have allowed [you] to improve the content short of removing it." You now have the burden of proving those two claims in addition to articulating what your definition of "salvageable" or "not salvageable" is. This is a begging the question fallacy. Clearly we disagree on what constitutes "salvageable," but Huon presumes that the content is not "salvageable."
 * "One is from WP:DR and apparently brought up to argue that I shouldn't have removed all the unsourced content. The problem with that argument is that the quote speaks of salvageable content. What I removed wasn't salvageable. I looked for sources and found none that would have allowed me to improve that content short of removing it. You disagree? Prove it."

Again, you are begging the question here. The very point of contention between us is whether the source is reliable. You think it isn't. I think it is. You still haven't answered why that an opinion piece cannot be reliable.
 * "Another quote is from WP:RS and states that sources may be opinionated and/or biased and still be acceptable. I don't quite see how that's relevant; the source in question is an opinion piece, but the problem with that source is not that it's opinionated or biased. The problem is that it's not a reliable source for facts in the first place."

Okay. Now we might be getting somewhere. So, is it accurate to say that your reason for considering the opinion piece an unreliable source that the opinion piece's writer has an opinion held by an extremely small minority? If that is your claim, then you have the burden of proving it. For example, I think we can say, from common sense, that most people just know that Flat Earth Theory is a view held by an extreme minority. However, can we say, with a reasonable degree of certainty, from common sense or via some other (reasonably) reliable method, that an employee's views about how a Christian school thinks about LGBT issues is in the extreme minority? No. In fact, that there is much debate about how Christians should treat LGBT issues is a well-known fact. And there is thus no good reason to believe that the view is in the extreme minority at all. In fact, there is reason against it. (But, to reiterate, your claim that the employee's view is that of an extreme minority has yet to be proved.)
 * "(And while it might arguably be considered a reliable source for the author's opinion, that's a viewpoint [...] held by an extremely small minority of one non-independent person, which should not be covered at all.)"

These primary sources are appropriate for the following reasons: (1) There is no reason to believe that the author's view is of an "extremely small minority." (2) There is reason to believe that the author's view is not of an "extremely small minority." Again, that there are debates about Christianity/LGBT, about how one ought to interpret the Bible with regards to LGBT matters, etc., is well known. So there is some reason to believe that it is not just an "extremely small minority" that objects to a Christian school's treatment of LGBT. (3) Absent further objections, the only reasonable potential objection I have so far imagined is that of bias or being opinionated. However, that point has already been refuted. I have quoted Wikipedia multiple times: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * "Finally, there's WP:Identifying and using primary sources which is used to argue that primary sources aren't all bad. True but irrelevant; CensoredDog does not make a case why these primary sources are appropriate."

CensoredDog (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I seem to have misunderstood your point in bringing up the WP:DR quote about the best practice of not removing salvageable content (four times!). Please explain how that quote is relevant to this article and what conclusions for the article's content you draw from that quote, if it's not meant to argue that the content that I removed was salvageable and shouldn't have been removed. I don't have to prove that the unsourced content was unsalvageable; the burden of evidence is on the editor who wants content included. I linked to that part of WP:V twice already.
 * Secondly, I already pointed out above that WP:IRS has something to say on the reliability of opinion pieces. I'm not going to repeat that if you didn't hear it. The opinion piece's reliability in itself is not influenced by how widely held the opinion is, and it wouldn't be any more reliable a source for facts if the author's opinions were shared by every person on the planet. That said, we don't need to give every opinion ever published (that was supported by a quote from WP:NPOV above, before I get accused again of making assertions without argument), and this is a single person explaining "why I quit". There's no evidence that others share this opinion on Morrison Academy, no evidence that Morrison Academy suffers a large-scale personnel exodus because of its personnel policies, and no indication that anybody beyond this one former employee considered Morrison Academy's stance, or the criticism of that stance, worthy of mention. You assert that "there is some reason to believe that it is not just an "extremely small minority" that objects to a Christian school's treatment of LGBT" - prove it. Your personal knowledge of the disputes surrounding LGBT rights and religion won't do, even sources about the disputes surrounding LGBT rights and religion in general won't do; reliable published sources discussing Morrison Academy's policies and the criticism thereof would be required. There are none? Then it's not a big issue, at least not in the context of Morrison Academy (which is the topic here). Bringing up "opinionated" again as an objection to be refuted after I explicitly said that that's not the issue is a straw man.
 * Thirdly, your arguments in favor of primary sources are only relevant to the opinion piece; I've commented on that above. You do not make a positive case for the appropriateness of the sources beyond the likely spread of the opinion piece's author's opinion.
 * If there are any further major arguments in favor of your proposed content that I haven't addressed, please point me towards them. Huon (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I have tried my best to make the summary of the dispute neutral. Huon (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

REPLY TO Huon FROM CensoredDog

I would first like to apologize for another long post. However, I am sincerely trying my very best to remain concise, objective, and cooperative, and I believe that the best way to resolve the current issues are to read my (unfortunately long) post carefully.

Thank you, Huon, for asking these clarificatory questions. It is my opinion that this summary you have edited sounds much more neutral to me, and I can tell that you have tried to make your summary of the dispute neutral. I really appreciate your effort and truly think that our discussion will gradually be more productive. Pace Huon, I still disagree with some of his or her main points, and I feel that I can make these points clearer.

Huon says: "Firstly, I seem to have misunderstood your point in bringing up the WP:DR quote about the best practice of not removing salvageable content (four times!). Please explain how that quote is relevant to this article and what conclusions for the article's content you draw from that quote, if it's not meant to argue that the content that I removed was salvageable and shouldn't have been removed."

There are two issues that we must consider here. The first is whether I have the burden of proof (in a logical, argument theoretical context). The second is whether Huon has the burden of proof (also in a logical, argument theoretical context). To determine burden of proof, the main criterion in our case is as follows: Who made what assertion? (Questions, silence, or failure to answer do not count as assertions). If, for example, Bob says "Smith has a sister," then Bob has the burden of proving that Smith has a sister. If, for example, Sally says "Smith does not have a sister," then this person has the burden of proving that Smith does not have a sister. Notice that burden of proof is not mutually exclusive: If Bob claims "Smith has a sister" and Sally says "Smith does not have a sister," then both people have their respective burdens of proof!

A very important caveat - If Bob says "Smith has a sister," then doesn't have evidence, it does not entail that "Smith does not have a sister." Likewise, if Sally says "Smith does not have a sister," then doesn't have evidence for it, it does not entail that "Smith has a sister." To draw conclusions like this would be to confuse the absence of evidence with the evidence of absence, which is a logical fallacy.

Analogously, in this case, I implicitly accepted the assertion "some content X is salvageable." You also seemed to have accepted the assertion "some content X is not salvageable." This means that we both have our own burdens of proof (I am truly sorry for saying I don't have the BOP earlier. I really did misinterpret Huon's words). Again, the same caveat. If I fail to provide evidence that "some content X is salvageable," that does not entail that "some content X is not salvageable." Likewise, if you fail to provide evidence that "some content X is not salvageable," that does not entail that "some content X is salvageable."

Huon asked me why I think the content is salvageable. Here is what I think.

First, the content about LGBT and/or divorce does not seem to be false, misleading, or inaccurate to me. What it states is based on a primary source from the school itself. I don't think I have injected my own interpretations about what the school policy means. If Huon or other users think that I have injected my own interpretations about what the school policy means, then I will do my best to address that issue. However, so far I have not heard Huon explain why the statement I published about it is inaccurate in any way.

Second, about undue weight and cherry picking. It is true that LGBT and divorce are but two aspects of a comparatively long article that mentions many other things such as incest, bestiality, etc. However, for the same reason that I agreed with Ganbaruby's decision to take down the math section I added (to summarize: don't publish everything there is in the world to publish; some things are just not noteworthy enough to publish), I think that matters such as bestiality need not be mentioned. I am exercising a judgment that every editor has to exercise. This was what I meant when I said "interpreting what one thinks is important enough to be published is not only desirable, but necessary (otherwise, I'd have to publish literally everything, which is ludicrous)" and identified a fallacy of equivocation (i.e., In this case, the word 'interpretation' has two meanings: (1) interpretation about what a piece of text from a primary source means, and (2) interpretation, or, rather careful judgment, about what to add or leave out as editor. I think we can agree that only (1) is problematic; (2) is not). I really am dong my best to be neutral with regards to this source. If you still maintain that I am cherry picking or giving undue weight to LGBT and/or divorce, then perhaps our most productive course of action is to identify what other parts of the document are worth mentioning in the article.

Third, as to why I think LGBT and/or divorce is noteworthy. Readers may be interested in knowing what the school's views on LGBT, marriage, and divorce are, and far less likely to be interested in what the bestiality rules are, because LGBT, marriage, and divorce are a particularly relevant (and controversial) set of issues in contemporary educational, political, philosophical, and scientific discourse that affects people of all ages. One possibility is that readers may be interested in knowing whether the school is a good fit for them. If a potential student or employee is a part of the LGBT community, or if an employee is at an age at which marriage or divorce is appropriate, then they may find the issue of what Morrison Academy's stance on LGBT, marriage, and/or divorce is to be very relevant, as it may deeply affect their educational and professional careers. Furthermore, the Christian population does not have a consensus on what Biblical interpretation is best for LGBT issues or issues of marriage (either same-sex or opposite sex) or divorce. Again, we can agree that there is huge debate on these topics that are potentially life-changing, so readers are likely interested in LGBT, marriage, divorce, etc., and much more so than they are of issues regarding, say, bestiality. Let it be stated that I think these reasons alone are strong enough to justify keeping the source and the content about LGBT/marriage/divorce. However, on to your point about "extreme minority."

The presence of that one article written by a former employee establishes that there is at least one employee who takes issue with the school's handling of LGBT issues. It does not prove that there is only one employee who takes issue. Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that employees at a school may not wish to speak out against certain issues regarding LGBT, marriage, or divorce, or anything that might be too controversial as to potentially cost them their jobs. Thus, it is not surprising that there is, to my knowledge, only one such article from a former employee. What will be more productive is if we investigate the credibility of that article. Sure, it is an opinion piece, but, again, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Furthermore, I have read the article and found it to be well-written and evenhanded. Lastly, I think the article refutes one of Huon's claims that that school policy is "obscure" and explains why, even if that were true, obscurity is irrelevant: The teacher claims to have lost her job due in whole or in part to those school policies which Huon claims to be obscure. The fact that she allegedly lost her job due in whole or in part to those school policies further reinforces the point that readers may be interested. The author of that source states that the superintendent called her in to discuss the very policy which Huon would like to dispose of. According to the author, the superintendent quotes those policies:

'''“Based upon the teaching of the Bible that marriage between husband and wife is a sacred institution, and sexual conduct is to be within the context of marriage alone, Morrison Academy believes that the term “marriage” has only one meaning: the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive union. (Gen 2:18-25) We believe that God intends sexual intimacy to occur only between a man and a woman who are married to each other. (1 Cor 6:18) We believe that God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.” '''

Now, there have been no arguments as to why the author of that primary source may be unreliable. Again, it seems well-written, evenhanded, and relatively recent -- it was published in 2016, not 1992, as one of the secondary sources Huon added was.

CensoredDog (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC) CensoredDog (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

''I think I accidentally deleted a sentence about starting a new LGBT/marriage/divorce section. Because the central issue seems to be on LGBT/marriage/divorce now, for any further discussion about LGBT/marriage/divorce, refer to the section I added (in which one can find an exact copy of the above reply from CensordDog (me) to Huon.'' CensoredDog (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone's (unexplained) proposal to deletion of this article
Why, after only four days of discussion, is the Morrison Academy article now proposed for deletion? I am reposting why I posted on the deletion discussion page here.

This article should not be deleted.

The fact that this article is considered for deletion is somewhat confusing: no justification has been given for deletion at all, and, to my knowledge, all ongoing issues have been discussed extensively in the talk page, in which there has been consensus between the two main disputants (i.e., CensoredDog and Huon) to seek Dispute Resolution. Furthermore, ongoing discussion has only lasted 4 days, from March 7 to March 11, 2019.

Additionally, there is an apparent inconsistency between the treatment of this article and that of Morrison Academy's other campus in Kaohsiung. If Morrison Academy Kaohsiung's article stays, then the Morrison Academy article, which is about the original campus, should also stay.

On my view, every article--even those about schools--should remain open to different views. A caveat has been inserted on this page before that this article is written like an advertisement. Yet, upon the insertion of certain sections and passages whose content may be controversial (i.e., the school's stance not to condone certain issues of LGBT or divorce as well as its affirmation in a science curriculum that God is the creator of the universe), content that refers to reliable (absent further objections) primary and secondary sources, and that has not been proven to put undue weight, there has been resistance. Now, rather than considering improving this article, some user(s) are attempting to get it deleted for no apparent reason. This seems nonsensical to say the least.

CensoredDog (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Superfluous details about the curriculum - no sourcing other than from the school
I am not going to try to read the walls of text above, but the article had several very short sections about the school's curriculum in different areas, utterly superfluous especially since the school itself was the only source. One sentence about their underlying principles is enough. If some editor who is not affiliated with the school disagrees, they should feel free to reverse my edit here, but if so the sections really have to be combined into one single section about the curriculum, and we would also need secondary sources (presumably there is a lot of sourced criticism, for instance.) There appears to be a lot of COI editing and any editor with a COI should (as always) avoid editing the article directly, and instead post succinct arguments on the talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 14:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Finally, another person! First, I'd like to apologize for the "wall of text." Second, I'm going to quote you lest I straw man.
 * "I am not going to try to read the walls of text above, but the article had several very short sections about the school's curriculum in different areas, utterly superfluous especially since the school itself was the only source."
 * Since you would not like to read the "walls of text" above, I (and perhaps others) will have to retype some more (sorry). Your point that the school's curriculum is "utterly superfluous" is arguable. Furthermore, that the "school itself was the only source" is not a good reason. I would type why, but I think the "wall of text" above is quite informative already.


 * "One sentence about their underlying principles is enough."
 * Not necessarily. Do all Christian schools advocate only a theistic worldview in the science classroom? I really don't know. I know Morrison does, and perhaps other readers should know this.


 * "If some editor who is not affiliated with the school disagrees, they should feel free to reverse my edit"
 * I will unequivocally say that I am not affiliated with the school in any way, shape, or form. But I will not reverse your edit until further discussion.


 * "but if so the sections really have to be combined into one single section about the curriculum, and we would also need secondary sources (presumably there is a lot of sourced criticism, for instance.)"
 * The wall of text above has plenty of information why secondary sources are not necessary in section(s) about curricula. But I think one single section about the curriculum is a workable idea. Also, whether the school has AP courses/tests, as well as which APs, seems important. Let me know what you think.


 * "There appears to be a lot of COI editing and any editor with a COI should (as always) avoid editing the article directly, and instead post succinct arguments on the talk page."
 * So far, only Ganbaruby has stated that he/she has a COI. CensoredDog (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm the editor with the COI, being a recent graduate of the school. I keep an eye out on this page, but my edits are all uncontroversial, and I don't think it constitutes as COI editing. I would advocate for the Biblical curriculum section because 1. Not all Christian high schools share the same views and 2. It is a central part to the school's identity. Additionally, we've agreed above that under WP:PRIMARYCARE, very basic information about the organization that readers would find important to know more about the school can be included even if it were only backed by primary sources. We've fixed some problems with adding interpretations to make it very literal and neutral. I like the idea of a combined curriculum section highlighting the aspects of Morrison's education that differs from other Christian schools, most notably our approach to the Bible and science, and I'll be glad to provide anecdotes to help with hammering out that section. ◢ Ganbaruby!  16:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I second that. Also, from what I can gather, Morrison Academy is one of the few schools in Taichung (and perhaps Taiwan) that requires students to have foreign passports, making it different from a "bilingual" school. My guess is that this is very important, legally and academically. Perhaps we can find more info on this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredDog (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, basic information can be backed by primary sources, and currently the article includes information about what the school says about its curriculum, backed by its own website. What sources are there that discuss how Morrison's curriculum is different from other schools? For that we must have independent sources and not include any synthesis of primary sources. Anecdotes are perhaps interesting but not useful as sources. I'm also curious about why a requirement to hold a foreign passport would have any importance academically? The school is monolingually English according to their own website - which is also mentioned in the article - and in any case, being bilingual has nothing to do with citizenship or which passport somebody holds, so that seems to be a side issuee. --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The mere fact that Morrison is Christian school with a mandatory Christian curriculum is already a significant difference to other non-religious high schools. Even within Christianity, there are many, many denominations and types of approaches to the creation story. The lead of the article does state that Morrison is Christian, but it doesn't delve deeper into what that really means specifically to this context, namely that we have a mandatory Biblical curriculum that is Protestant. The purpose of the deleted curriculum section was to inform readers that such a curriculum exists and to touch upon what perspective of Christianity the school upholds. It only states the literal of the primary sources, consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. No attempt at synthesis was made, like comparing Morrison's curriculum to other curriculums or by identifying Morrison's Christian perspective as a type of Christianity because I could not find independent sources regarding this issue. Despite the lack of independent sources, this context is very valuable information for the reader that should not be omitted {see WP:PCR). I would support a rewording of the section to make it clearer and more in line with Wikipedia guidelines.


 * On a separate note, I agree with Bonadea for their reasons that the foreign passport fact is not as important to this article, since every single international school in Taiwan has that requirement as well. ◢ Ganbaruby!  14:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know why I keep on agreeing with Ganbaruby. Maybe it's because he/she is right? Ha. But I do disagree on some points. I think the passport thing is highly relevant in Taiwan, though it may not be so obvious to most readers. For example, one international school in Taiwan tends to look the other way when students present dubious passports--Taiwanese people with fake or bought passports from Burkina Faso, etc. The school was lax on purpose and this led to a political mess that almost got the school shut down in the 90s. Academically, this meant that the school's students were (and are) mostly non-native English speakers who can't compete with Morrison Academy, at least English-wise. On a related note, merely "bilingual" schools are often mistaken for (monolingual) international schools in Taiwan (and some are reputedly de facto monolingual). The academic relevance is that the curricula of these bilingual schools can be very different due to different regulations and lack of accreditation from WASC, etc., and many of them are thus far inferior to Morrison overall. Take, for example, another school that shalt not be named (yet). Unfettered by international school laws, it was established by a renowned mobster and owner of the largest Karaoke/nightclub in Asia (one of the few places where Taiwan gets gunfights). Predictably, the school does not really, well, teach anything. So yes, with the right context, information such as passports (and accreditation, etc.) can be very important. CensoredDog (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This information would be more relevant on a page about Taiwanese international/bilingual schools since it talks about schools outside of Morrison. You cannot assume causation between passport status and curriculum, something I feel like you are on the verge of doing. Morrison is not inherently better than any other school because of our curriculum. You also need to back all of that information above by reliable secondary sources, something we've discussed extensively before. Also, bought passports exist in Morrison too: the flags on the front side of campus represent every nationality in the school, and we have random African countries out there. ◢ Ganbaruby!  02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right. About backing up with sources and correlation/causation, that's why I haven't added anything about passports. This list of international schools in Taiwan conflates 'international' with 'bilingual', but changing that will have to be another project. Also, I saw your message to user Bonadea on his/her talk page. I think, if he/she doesn't respond in the next 24 hours, it's reasonable to resume editing. CensoredDog (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I waited for 24 hours and no response. Furthermore, it's been seven days since Bonadea posted and since his objections were addressed by me and Ganbaruby. I've followed Bonadea's recommendations to merge the curricula sections into one section. CensoredDog (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Split proposed
Hi guys,

I've recently proposed that the section on Morrison Academy Taipei be split into its own article, just like how Morrison Academy Kaohsiung has its own article. The schools are distinct enough to warrant separate articles. Let me know what you think.

Cheers, ◢ Ganbaruby!  16:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the page at Morrison Academy should be for the one school system in Taiwan that all three campuses fall under. The page should not be just about the Taichung campus. Currently there's some ambiguity about whether the page is for the school system or the Taichung campus, probably because of the central campus's historical precedence as the only one offering full secondary school. It makes sense to me that the different campuses would just be sections under that page. Taipei and Kaohsiung could have separate pages for more detail, but I don't think that's necessary until there is enough content to merit breaking them out. I think from the perspective of a student on any given campus, the three campuses can probably seem more separate than they really are organizationally. YgFZAcpJUJ (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

LGBT/marriage/divorce
REPLY TO Huon FROM CensoredDog

I would first like to apologize for another long post. However, I am sincerely trying my very best to remain concise, objective, and cooperative, and I believe that the best way to resolve the current issues are to read my (unfortunately long) post carefully.

Thank you, Huon, for asking these clarificatory questions. It is my opinion that this summary you have edited sounds much more neutral to me, and I can tell that you have tried to make your summary of the dispute neutral. I really appreciate your effort and truly think that our discussion will gradually be more productive. Pace Huon, I still disagree with some of his or her main points, and I feel that I can make these points clearer.

Huon says: "Firstly, I seem to have misunderstood your point in bringing up the WP:DR quote about the best practice of not removing salvageable content (four times!). Please explain how that quote is relevant to this article and what conclusions for the article's content you draw from that quote, if it's not meant to argue that the content that I removed was salvageable and shouldn't have been removed."

There are two issues that we must consider here. The first is whether I have the burden of proof (in a logical, argument theoretical context). The second is whether Huon has the burden of proof (also in a logical, argument theoretical context). To determine burden of proof, the main criterion in our case is as follows: Who made what assertion? (Questions, silence, or failure to answer do not count as assertions). If, for example, Bob says "Smith has a sister," then Bob has the burden of proving that Smith has a sister. If, for example, Sally says "Smith does not have a sister," then this person has the burden of proving that Smith does not have a sister. Notice that burden of proof is not mutually exclusive: If Bob claims "Smith has a sister" and Sally says "Smith does not have a sister," then both people have their respective burdens of proof!

A very important caveat - If Bob says "Smith has a sister," then doesn't have evidence, it does not entail that "Smith does not have a sister." Likewise, if Sally says "Smith does not have a sister," then doesn't have evidence for it, it does not entail that "Smith has a sister." To draw conclusions like this would be to confuse the absence of evidence with the evidence of absence, which is a logical fallacy.

Analogously, in this case, I implicitly accepted the assertion "some content X is salvageable." You also seemed to have accepted the assertion "some content X is not salvageable." This means that we both have our own burdens of proof (I am truly sorry for saying I don't have the BOP earlier. I really did misinterpret Huon's words). Again, the same caveat. If I fail to provide evidence that "some content X is salvageable," that does not entail that "some content X is not salvageable." Likewise, if you fail to provide evidence that "some content X is not salvageable," that does not entail that "some content X is salvageable."

Huon asked me why I think the content is salvageable. Here is what I think.

First, the content about LGBT and/or divorce does not seem to be false, misleading, or inaccurate to me. What it states is based on a primary source from the school itself. I don't think I have injected my own interpretations about what the school policy means. If Huon or other users think that I have injected my own interpretations about what the school policy means, then I will do my best to address that issue. However, so far I have not heard Huon explain why the statement I published about it is inaccurate in any way.

Second, about undue weight and cherry picking. It is true that LGBT and divorce are but two aspects of a comparatively long article that mentions many other things such as incest, bestiality, etc. However, for the same reason that I agreed with Ganbaruby's decision to take down the math section I added (to summarize: don't publish everything there is in the world to publish; some things are just not noteworthy enough to publish), I think that matters such as bestiality need not be mentioned. I am exercising a judgment that every editor has to exercise. This was what I meant when I said "interpreting what one thinks is important enough to be published is not only desirable, but necessary (otherwise, I'd have to publish literally everything, which is ludicrous)" and identified a fallacy of equivocation (i.e., In this case, the word 'interpretation' has two meanings: (1) interpretation about what a piece of text from a primary source means, and (2) interpretation, or, rather careful judgment, about what to add or leave out as editor. I think we can agree that only (1) is problematic; (2) is not). I really am dong my best to be neutral with regards to this source. If you still maintain that I am cherry picking or giving undue weight to LGBT and/or divorce, then perhaps our most productive course of action is to identify what other parts of the document are worth mentioning in the article.

Third, as to why I think LGBT and/or divorce is noteworthy. Readers may be interested in knowing what the school's views on LGBT, marriage, and divorce are, and far less likely to be interested in what the bestiality rules are, because LGBT, marriage, and divorce are a particularly relevant (and controversial) set of issues in contemporary educational, political, philosophical, and scientific discourse that affects people of all ages. One possibility is that readers may be interested in knowing whether the school is a good fit for them. If a potential student or employee is a part of the LGBT community, or if an employee is at an age at which marriage or divorce is appropriate, then they may find the issue of what Morrison Academy's stance on LGBT, marriage, and/or divorce is to be very relevant, as it may deeply affect their educational and professional careers. Furthermore, the Christian population does not have a consensus on what Biblical interpretation is best for LGBT issues or issues of marriage (either same-sex or opposite sex) or divorce. Again, we can agree that there is huge debate on these topics that are potentially life-changing, so readers are likely interested in LGBT, marriage, divorce, etc., and much more so than they are of issues regarding, say, bestiality. Let it be stated that I think these reasons alone are strong enough to justify keeping the source and the content about LGBT/marriage/divorce. However, on to your point about "extreme minority."

The presence of that one article written by a former employee establishes that there is at least one employee who takes issue with the school's handling of LGBT issues. It does not prove that there is only one employee who takes issue. Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that employees at a school may not wish to speak out against certain issues regarding LGBT, marriage, or divorce, or anything that might be too controversial as to potentially cost them their jobs. Thus, it is not surprising that there is, to my knowledge, only one such article from a former employee. What will be more productive is if we investigate the credibility of that article. Sure, it is an opinion piece, but, again, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Furthermore, I have read the article and found it to be well-written and evenhanded. Lastly, I think the article refutes one of Huon's claims that that school policy is "obscure" and explains why, even if that were true, obscurity is irrelevant: The teacher claims to have lost her job due in whole or in part to those school policies which Huon claims to be obscure. The fact that she allegedly lost her job due in whole or in part to those school policies further reinforces the point that readers may be interested. The author of that source states that the superintendent called her in to discuss the very policy which Huon would like to dispose of. According to the author, the superintendent quotes those policies:

'''“Based upon the teaching of the Bible that marriage between husband and wife is a sacred institution, and sexual conduct is to be within the context of marriage alone, Morrison Academy believes that the term “marriage” has only one meaning: the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive union. (Gen 2:18-25) We believe that God intends sexual intimacy to occur only between a man and a woman who are married to each other. (1 Cor 6:18) We believe that God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.”'''

Now, there have been no arguments as to why the author of that primary source may be unreliable. Again, it seems well-written, evenhanded, and relatively recent -- it was published in 2016, not 1992, as one of the secondary sources Huon added was. CensoredDog (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC) CensoredDog (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC) CensoredDog (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC) CensoredDog (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I question how this section is relevant in an introductory article about the school system. Including it seems to go against WP:TOPIC and including it when there's so little else to the article seems against WP:NPOV. YgFZAcpJUJ (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)