Talk:Oklahoma Baptist University/Archive 1

Motto
Seems like some people don't know the difference between a PR slogan and the university's academic motto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.162.2 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC) "As a Christian liberal arts university, OBU transforms lives by equipping students to pursue academic excellence, integrate faith with all areas of knowledge, engage a diverse world, and live worthy of the high calling of God in Christ." is a PR slogan, not the university's academic motto! Please, it's use on the university website is rampant. Do not edit this page with things like these. Although, it is nice, it is a moot point on a Wikipedia page.Gigrantula (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Gigrantula

Vandalism
This page has been vandalized in numerous places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.32.170 (talk • contribs)

"Vandalism" to OBU administrators is anything that doesn't agree with the image they are trying to sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnyguy575 (talk • contribs)

University Seal
It'd be nice to know if someone has a digital image of the university seal. Jeckie 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo Request
A couple of good pictures of the school and its logo would be nice... -- Ash Lux ( talk 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems opinionated
I would have to say, that the article is very poor, as it has little about the actual school campus, and, and seems to mainly focus on the athletic department.

some cleanup and clarification would be nice.

Daveramone 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable alumni
per precedent on other university pages, the ones without WP articles should be removed. I think that's a suitable standard for the purpose. DGG 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Unfortuantly wikipedia articles do not determine the notability of individuals. Thank God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.155.88.1 (talk • contribs)  23:09, 27 May 2007  (UTC)


 * To some extent you are right, that WP articles may not yet have been written. I have therefore left in the ones who would surely get a WP article, like members of state legislators, or college presidents. You are also right in another sense, that many have WP articles who by any rational standard don't warrant them. But I rely the collective judgment in WP more than my own. There's an easy way to resolve disagreement: if someone doesn't have an article, write one. But I at any rate am not going to start looking through here for people whose articles should be deleted. DGG 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

copyright problems
The school song is presumably copyright, and we should not include they lyrics unelsss they have been released into the public domain, or licensed under GFDL. In any case, articles about universities do not customarily include this material, so unless someone can give a good reason otherwise, it will be removed. DGG 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * removed accordingly as copyvio. Do not restore without proof of licensing.DGG (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 10:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning History of OBU
Anyone with access to the OBU archives should come forward and give a better presentation about the history of OBU. If you go to the main university's website, some info is available there, but should be available here. Please break up into sections of from 1910-1934 (Pre-Dr. John W. Raley), 1934-1960 (During Dr. Raley's presidency), 1960-1990 (Post-Dr. Raley era), and 1990-present (Modern era). Gigrantula (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Gigrantula

How to deal with controversial issues concerning OBU
I created a "Controversies" section highlighting just a few of the many controversial issues OBU faces concerning its policy on human sexuality and behavior, gender representation in the administration and religion faculty, its relationship to the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and how the institution has fared in the decades-long tensions between state conventions and Baptist universities.

Another user subsequently edited a few opinionated statements and provided some missing documentation. Those changes stood for a few months until yesterday, when an anonymous editor completely scrubbed the "Controversies" section, save for one or two sentences.

We need to decide how we are going to proceed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlupfer1 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have been "edited" by someone at OBU who didn't agree with your section, although the majority of which is true. As of today, the section has been deleted by a user. The only thing at this point I could ask you to do is to re-type the section concerning controversies and re-post. I will return the page back to where it was if there are any edits by OBU staff or students who want to edit a Wikipedia page because they simply don't agree. If it becomes a problem, then you should report it to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia that contains info. for the benefit of all, not the "moral majority". <--Gigrantula-->

It's disappointing that some of the relevant, well-sourced material was deleted. The P.R. man was just doing his job, I guess. But I am going to retype some of the "Controversies" sections on Thursday. I now operate a blog, www.SaveOBU.blogspot.com, which (although opinionated) is very well-documented. But based on my extensive interactions with students, faculty, and alumni over the past few months, I now have a better idea of what is relevant and how to document it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlupfer1 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The numerous issues regarding the SoulForce "controversies" are non-controversies that are either poorly documented or biased retellings of isolated irrelevant events. The 2007 incident with SoulForce was treated equally to other off-campus groups. Additionally, the post quotes the co-director on a "promise" by OBU without any documentation that there was, in fact, any such statement by the university the context it took place. This segment is non-controversial.

Demonstrations are subject to being off-campus as OBU is a private institution and its land privately owned. The fact that SoulForce was asked to demonstrate off campus is reflective of that. The arrests that happened during one of those demonstrations was due to trespassing on private property. This segment is non-controversial.

The entire section of Discontent with Administration's Actions was regarding the opinion's one of blogger and wikieditor, Jlupfer1, who has since ended his blog and admitted it was both incorrect and biased. In his final post, which was the source of this section, he admits he made mistakes, wrote with bias and anger, much of his work was speculation and proved unfounded, and even apologized for the mistakes he made. By the author's own admission, this segment is non-controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couponclipper (talk • contribs) 12:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Controversies section
This is obviously a contentious issue, so let's hash this whole thing out here and now. (Disclaimer: I do work at OBU.)

The Controversies section does not help the article at all. It reads as a rant against the university, and breaks multiple Wikipedia guidelines on content. I'll start at the top.


 * The first paragraph reads as a gossip column. (breaks neutral point of view)
 * The section starting "Human Sexuality" refers to the practice of reparative therapy, yet cites the OBU student handbook which has nothing of the sort in it. (breaks verifiability)
 * The section about the demonstrations by Soulforce do not contribute to the article, except to reinforce the point of view of the section's author. Is it verifiable? Yes, but that does not in and of itself guarantee inclusion. (see Verify)
 * The "Discontent with Administrators' Actions" section largely uses the Save OBU blog as a source for the information. This website should be considered a self-published source and is generally not acceptable as a source for Wikipedia articles. Without those citations, the entire section falls apart.

We were bold. We reverted. Now let's discuss. 66.210.144.39 (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Soulforce material is clearly verifiable and relevant and is discussed in a number of reliable sources, as shown by Google and Google News search. The current content about Soulforce may benefit from editing to better comply with the requirement of neutral point of view, and additional sources can be added, but it should not be deleted entirely. The other issues, however, do need better sourcing to be retained. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The numerous issues regarding the SoulForce "controversies" are non-controversies that are either poorly documented or biased retellings of isolated irrelevant events. The 2007 incident with SoulForce was treated equally to other off-campus groups. Additionally, the post quotes the co-director on a "promise" by OBU without any documentation that there was, in fact, any such statement by the university the context it took place. This segment is non-controversial.

Demonstrations are subject to being off-campus as OBU is a private institution and its land privately owned. The fact that SoulForce was asked to demonstrate off campus is reflective of that. The arrests that happened during one of those demonstrations was due to trespassing on private property. This segment is non-controversial.

The entire section of Discontent with Administration's Actions was regarding the opinion's one of blogger and wikieditor, Jlupfer1, who has since ended his blog and admitted it was both incorrect and biased. In his final post, which was the source of this section, he admits he made mistakes, wrote with bias and anger, much of his work was speculation and proved unfounded, and even apologized for the mistakes he made. By the author's own admission, this segment is non-controversial.

Due to the lack of sourcing, the section concerning the BGCO has been removed and will not be reposted. However, since the articles concerning the Soulforce demonstrations are clearly sourced and did indeed occur upon or near OBU's campus. The matter of whether or not you deem it to be "non-controversial" in your opinion, is of no consequence to an open-sourced encyclopedia. <--Gigrantula--> August 3, 2015.

Actually, concerning wikipedia's own policies regarding the use of calling content "controversy", the content is mislabeled, hence the need for either removal or editing. Many universities have had similar demonstrations and are not deemed as controversial. The more appropriate and beneficial is a "Student Life" section that includes OBU's policies on same-sex and other issues. I have already demonstrated how the current content regarding Soul Force is in violation of neutrality as it assumes there was some wrong doing on behalf of OBU. Additionally, the student handbook does not say anywhere that openly homosexual students are forced into reversion therapy. It simply states that any in violation of ANY campus conducy policy will have assigned counseling services. This statement is being removed as claims of reversion theraphy is undocumented and not supported by the Green Book. The content, as is, is in violating neutrality and continues reversions shows a lack of cooperation towards reflecting honesty regarding the subject. Your deeming it controversial is both your opinion and no consequence to an open-sourced encyclopedia. If the desire is to make it known OBU does not support same-sex marriage, I propose creating a Student Life section. But according to the letter of the law, OBU was in its right on how it handled the Soul Force demonstrations and the demonstraters were removed lawfully for trespassing on private property.

The controversies section will not be relegated to a few notes in the Student Life section. It entails events that took place on campus and citations given were from publications, not blogs this time. Also, the student handbook does indeed state the ambiguous phrase of "Counseling" in its wording, but what is the form of "counseling" you wish to bring to LGBT students who may be attending your university? This is controversial, I'd say given the ambiguity. As far as the letter of the law is concerned, OBU was indeed within its' right to enforce private property ownership by not allowing unwanted guests in their university, but that means then within that same letter of the law, people can speak out against it. In no way, does the section insinuate any sort of overreach by anyone affiliated with OBU when the riders came to campus. There are many pages on Wikipedia that have a controversies section within them, that includes many universities, public or private, and even with this particular issue, that I'm sure many university administrators would like to sweep under the proverbial rug, but ultimately those stay on those pages, whether they like it or not. OBU doesn't have any special exemption to controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigrantula (talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Counseling can be many things but is in no way documented as reversion therapy, which is denounced by the SBC. Baseless accusations of this practice are speculative and without sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couponclipper (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree that much of what was labeled "controversy" isn't since this organization demonstrates everywhere. No different than PETA demonstrating on Agriculture University campuses. There is no controversy, just a differing of opinion. OBU is clear about their position which is required by their affiliation with the Southern Baptist Conference.Billhandy (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * While there are sources, this is not a notable event. Removal of the section is warranted.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, there is yet another editor that is trying to get into an edit war simply because they simply don't agree with the content published. This is an encyclopedia and not your public relations area. You don't get to determine what is important and what isn't simply because of a disdain for the group known as SoulForce. All of the sourced material was clearly marked and picked up by several nationally syndicated news organizations so is thereby, more than acceptable by Wikipedia's standards but once again, after several years of dealing with what appears to be an orchestrated campaign by university administration.

<--Gigrantula--> January 7, 2016.
 * This isn't notable and certainly should not be listed here. There are several editors who have disagreeing with you. Looking at your contributions, the only articles you edit only deal with OBU. Please keep in mind that you do not own the article. You show that pretty darn good. Also, you face the possibility of being blocked if you keep edit-warring. ❄ Corkythe hornetfan  ❄ 04:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've stated several times that everything there is properly sourced and completely allowable through Wikipedia's standards. None of it is written in a biased way, it's something controversial that did indeed occur on OBU's campus, it's sourced not only from local and state news agencies but national agencies as well, which would counter the entire, "This isn't notable" argument, and many pages representing universities have controversies sections inside of them. You're right, I only deal with things inside of Shawnee, Oklahoma when it comes to Wikipedia because it's my hometown but much of that has to both the page for Shawnee, Oklahoma and this particular page, that is if you're so keen to look at the contributions, rather than just focusing on the edits themselves. I've been dealing with this for the last four and a half years, always about the same time that a semester starts up for OBU. So, if it's edit warriors that you are truly after, then look at the multiple accounts that have attempted to just delete the information given. I know this page doesn't belong to anyone except the Wikipedia community, that's why I don't like to see sourced information get deleted simply because they wish to enforce an opinion, rather than fact. <--Gigrantula--> January 8, 2016
 * Soulforce's forums are not a WP:RS for WP:BLP issues like arrests and persons involved in demonstrations. It is a WP:BLPVIO to do so.  Additionally, it lends WP:UNDUE weight to include such a large entry on a non-notable event. Manufactured and non-notable demonstrations from WP:PRIMARY sources for common events (demonstrations on college campuses are certainly common) violate WP:NPOV and are promoting an agenda. The section does not belong; there is no long lasting significance to the event.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oklahoma Baptist University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527213959/http://www.okbu.edu/obumagazine/OBUmag_Spring07.pdf to http://www.okbu.edu/obumagazine/OBUmag_Spring07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Oklahoma Baptist University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.okbu.edu/academics/catalog/Catalog_04-05_Overview.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100527141759/http://www.okbu.edu/alumni/honordocs.html to http://www.okbu.edu/alumni/honordocs.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma Baptist University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120805084109/http://www.okbu.edu/news/2005-05-26/ceremony-recognizes-60th-anniversary-of-world-war-ii to http://www.okbu.edu/news/2005-05-26/ceremony-recognizes-60th-anniversary-of-world-war-ii

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Delta Sigma Pi
In the article Delta Sigma Pi is characterized as for "math", but if you click through to the article about Delta Sigma Pi, it is described as business-oriented. Is "math" an error or is the organization different at OBU?Bill (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)