Talk:Regent University/Archive 1

Ungrad
Hi all. I just edited the "undergrad" section. I took out some language that seemed to be pulled from an advert or something: "boasts a world-class faculty". I also added some info on course offerings. 12.210.136.121 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Regent still offers the LLM degree, according to their website.

Could we monitor the law school portion of this page? I am sure there will be some adds and edits that will have some POV problems. Chrisfortier 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Law School

I deeply agree Chris. Making very unneutralized POV. It's funny because it's a conservative school, and the boston articles cited is from a liberal newspaper. Of course its going to have bad POV. No major media has covered Regent. Boston column cited un attributed opinionated political comments from new republic.The department of justice has 112,500+ employees since 2005. I would at least hope some Regent graduates were apart of that especially being educated by the former attorney general himself, I wouldn't say the door has flung open to them. This needs to be disputed. Considering the rank is tier 4 (look up the criteria of what makes a ranking) Regent won't rank higher for years to come because it's a new school has a low population. Nevertheless look at the Princeton review rankings WOW. Despite this, since I've been following this controversy Regent looks like a top of the line new law school. There's also a lot of prominent alumni most who work in the public sector as judges, attorney general (virginia), etc.
 * "No major media has covered Regent"? Even if you don't like the Globe, you can't deny it's a major paper--it has the thirteenth highest circulation in the country.  Also, the criteria US News uses in its rankings are peer assessments by lawyers and judges, GPA, LSAT scores, acceptance rate, student/faculty ratio, employment rate, and bar passage rate compared to the avg bar passage rate of the state it's in.  The criteria Princeton Review uses are "student assessment of: whether there is a strong sense of community at the school, how aesthetically pleasing the law school is, the location of the law school, the quality of the social life, classroom facilities, and the library staff," which have no bearing on academic quality.Calliopejen1 12:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

'''It's kind of like saying since Ken Lay from Enron went to the University of Houston. It deserves a negative POV.'''

I think the section should be added under Monica her self and left in the alumni section as this is attributed to the entire law school. We should just keep this factual. Please discuss.

Lawrence v. Texas
Ths following as readded by me:

In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate--who had applied to a job at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003--cited Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down an anti-sodomy law, as the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed.

Significance is that the school's newletter published the opinion of grad who 1) contradicts a Supreme Court ruling, and 2) seeks a job at the JD while affirming this opinion that contradicts the ruling. It fits in the context of the article. Arbustoo 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Writers are trying to mislead users about the school's reputation, and have not followed the normal paradigm for university entries using an unbias fashion.


 * If you would like to comment on a scandal of the DOJ please do it under the appropriate category such as DOJ firings. This has nothing descriptive about the law school and misrepresents it and is non neutral. Secondly, this Boston globe article is somewhat misleading. The Boston column is an opinionated article, and Regent law school didn't garner much unwanted attention as no major media covered Regent other then the Boston Globe.


 * In regards to the law school an Lawrence vs. Texas you may want to put this under alumni, once again doesn't have to do with law school it self rather then an opinion of an individual.


 * Please leave individuals out of he law the section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidash (talk • contribs).

I removed the "much" from "much unwanted attention" because it appears from a Westlaw news search that no other major papers have covered the story. However, the article in the Globe was in their national news section, not an an opinion section. I think that the news is relevant to the law school section. (I personally don't think the newsletter bit is of enough significance to include, but don't feel strongly enough to remove it myself.) If law school sympathizers want to make it so the whole section isn't just about the scandal, please do this by including non-copyrighted, sourced information about the law school--not by deleting sourced, relevant content wholesale. Calliopejen1 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Boston article is very important as it shows the progression of an lower ranked school, and how it has affected the school and justice department. As for the Lawrence vs. Texas, as was described in the Boston article and the wiki article, the claim was published by the school, and was made by a graduate who is seeking a Justice Department position. Thus, with ongoing scrunity about laws, civil rights, and justice department qualifications/agenda it is important. Also considering the case is one of the most notable decisions of the Supreme Court in the last few years and its not without its controversy, it is included.


 * Speaking of federal law, copyrighted material cannot be included on wikipedia period. Secondly trival competitions, as sports games, "Court Competition," or Marching Bands, are not included on wikipedia university articles. C56C 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikidash, discuss your changes here. Also copy and pasting someone else material is not acceptable. Arbustoo 01:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * His current news is focused on Regent law for its grads and justice department connections, the newsletter, is an interesting connection of evangical beliefs and law. Published views from grads that go against this should be included as well. Arbustoo 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree many alumni share different views, just because it's a Christian law school many share many different beliefs. Not all alumni are Christian as they represent many different denominations and religions therefore believing in many beliefs that the law school doesn't necessarily endorse. Nevertheless, I don't think its applicable to that section. For instance what if you published every paper that went against Catholic University views as Catholic. It would be overwhelming of a institution that graduates about 5000 a year. As it follows in other University entries I think it should be credited under the Notable Alumni.70.104.161.107 11:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note the New York Times Paul Krugman column about this issue. or and CBS. Therefore 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please find a conservative news paper besides the New York times and Boston Globe that has a different POV to substantiate this claim. "Critics of the media say this bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, the Associated Press, and National Public Radio (NPR])." www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf Remember our goal is to be neutral.  Wikidash 03:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem, Wikidash, is that these two papers are considered reliable sources WP:RS for Wikipedia. The Globe article, in particular, is from the news division and no the editorial page. You are correct that the Krugman article is an opinion piece from a columnist generally considered to be liberal. As of this writing, he is not being used for citation. Therefore 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of law school information
I suggest we discuss the differing edit issues, each in its own section.

ilrq.com statistics
I invite Wikidash and other to discuss this matter here. I don't understand your take on these stats, Wikidash. "61% of Regent students passed the bar overall in the country on their first attempt; however, most elect to take the Virginia state bar which averages 74%."The first part is correct, the second part is incorrect. The 74% is not the percentage of Regent students who take the Virginia state bar exam and passed. 74% is the percentage of Virginia law students who took any state bar exam and passed -- it is used for comparative purposes. Hence the "School vs. Avg." statistic -- which under your interpretation would make no sense. Therefore, I reverted your change back to the straightforward "61% of Regent students pass the bar on their first attempt; the Virginia state average is 74%." I think, Wikidash, you will find it more productive to suggest your changes on the talk page vs. unilateral edits. Thanks. Therefore 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * After additional research, I find that the above is incomplete and may be misleading. In fact, the 61% rate is the percent of Regent students who passed the bar in Virginia and does not count students who may have passed the bar in other states, potentially at a higher or lower rate. Therefore, I suggest that we change this verbiage to read:"61% of Regent students passed the Virginia bar exam on their first attempt as compared to the average of 74% for all Virginia law school graduates. These rates do not include Virginia law school graduates (including Regency) who took the exam in other states."Therefore 17:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Calliopejen1 -- I'm unsure whether even your clarification goes far enough. Please note suggested verbiage above. Thanks. Therefore 17:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is a correct interpretation of the statistic. ILRQ's website is vague, but LSAC has the same stats and explains them better.  It is comparing the school's average bar passage rate (for all students in the school taking it for the first time) with the state's average bar passage rate (for all exam takers).  The state is chosen by looking at the state in which most students from a certain school take the bar. Calliopejen1 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See also


 * Thanks. However, I still believe these statistics are for those graduates in VA who are taking the VA exam only. The cites you have provided state that jurisdiction is VA, so I agree it is ambiguous. However, I have found two cites that when discussing these stats state that they are only for VA bar exams and, hence, can be misleading. and . The first cite discusses it in a section called "Bar Passage Rate" and the second, towards the end of the article. Therefore 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One other matter, given states that 59 in total took the VA bar exam, shouldn't we change the verbiage "most took the VA bar exam"? If not, what should we use to cite that notable fact? Thanks. Therefore 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On further reading, I agree that this only has to do with Regent Law students who took the bar exam in Virginia. However, the comparison statistic is all bar exam takers in Virginia (not necessarily Virginia law students... you could go to school out of state and take the exam in Virginia).  Also, the "most took the VA bar" comes from http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/view.php/71, under bar exam statistics.  Presumably, a lot of Regent students must not take the bar and go into non-law careers.  The 59 students is a low sample size (especially given year-to-year variation), so I would change the stat to reflect all data available at the ilrg site.  I would phrase it as :"Over the years 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005, 51.5% of Regent students taking the Virginia bar exam passed on their first attempt; on average, 73% of all Virginia bar exam takers did so."


 * I believe the more current statistic is from in that it includes the 2006 and 2007 averages, and, therefore, is more accurate. I would recommend this verbiage: "For the four year period ending in 2007, an average of 61% of Regent students passed the Virginia bar exam on their first attempt as compared to the average of 74% for all Virginia. These rates do not include Regency Law school graduates who took the exam in other states." Call me obtuse and I know I am being so, but we know that 59 students in 2005 took the VA bar exam -- out of how many? If the class size is roughly 600, and guessing that maybe 150 graduate (had to fill up those Bush jobs somehow), is it still proper to say a majority took the VA bar vs. other states? Please be patient with me and  fill in what I missing. Therefore 20:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I linked to the wrong thing. if you look here, under bar exam statistics, it lists the state in which the most students took the bar exam.  This is a plurality of their students and not necessarily a majority, because it's possible that students take bar exams in many different states.  (Maybe 59 took the VA bar, 30 took the CA bar, 30 took the NY bar, etc etc.)  I'm pretty sure this is also the standard method for determining which bar passage rate to compare with that's used in law school rankings (though I don't have a cite for that at the moment, so it remains OR). FYI the ILRG site lists different percentages for the same years if you compare http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/4/asc/Bar/2004 (and the other pages you can link to from the top, such as 2007, 2006, etc) and http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/view.php/71, so it might not be such a reliable source.  (They're off by two years.)  Or we could just assume that the series of pages like http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/4/asc/Bar/2004  is off by two years, while http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/view.php/71 is accurate--the LSAC has the 2004/2005 rate as 61%, which .../2004 lists as the 2007 rate and ..../71 lists as the 2005 rate.  All in all it might just be best to cite ILRG for the explanation of the methodology (plurality of the students taking the exam in VA) and then LSAC for the pass rate, even if that inflates the percentage (since in all years except the very most recent, they did substantially worse). Calliopejen1 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my latest proposal: 36 of the 59 Regent students that took the Virginia bar exam in summer 2004 and winter 2005 (61%) passed on their first attempt; on average, 73% of all Virginia bar exam takers did so. Calliopejen1 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks good to me. FWIW, you read right -- states that the plurality is the state used as the basis for comparison. Therefore 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this looks good and has a neutral POV, because this is such a small demographic of students it can be misleading also. Add that Cali. Heh 90% of doctors think smoking is good for you. 9 out of 10. LOL. Wikidash 02:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

U.S. News and World Report rankings
I kept the details, the specific ranking, of the U.S. News and World Report. I reverted the statement "and higher in other rankings methodologies" since it has no attribution, a violation of WP:V. I removed the wikipedia citation for "although the ABA, LSAC, and AALS doesn't condone rankings as they can be 'misleading and deceptive'" but left the verbiage since it would be easy to add in citations from the wikipedia cite for this statement. To quote from WP:CITE:"Note: Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources.(emphasis from the article)"I removed the statement "especially for smaller politically bent schools" as it was not even in the wikipedia cite and is a violation of WP:OR. Therefore 12:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I added in cites for the criticisms and added in a defense of the rankings for balance to avoid a violation of WP:NPOV. Therefore 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In tier 3 and tier 4 schools there is no ranking. Only the top 100. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-law/brief/glanc_03172_brief.php I don't know how they got 136 this is wrong.Wikidash 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that. But I don't have access to the full subscription to the information -- that has to be paid for. Therefore, I rely on the Boston Globe article for that detail who probably does have access to this information. Therefore 23:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Princeton Review rankings for most conservative college
I put back in this ranking. How is "conservative" not a valid interpretation of "leans most to the right"? Or is it the goal to excise this statistic entirely? Wikidash, I invite you to discuss this here rather than deleting such information wholesale from the article. Therefore 12:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look on the Princeton review lists http://www.princetonreview.com/law/research/rankings/rankings.asp Most conservative law school isn't a category. Someone made it up. This should be deleted entirely.Wikidash 02:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, Wikidash. But I don't believe that list is meant to be exhaustive but illustrative. The citation points to the existence of the category and is, I suppose, based on student's self described political stances. Therefore 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused why there is the reference to the criticism of the USNWR rankings. It seems defensive and out of place in an encyclopedia. Moreover, it seems inconsistent with other references to USNWR ranking information about other law schools. This has the feel that someone related to the law school placed this to prop up the school's fairly weak academic reputation.Sussman79 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

U.S. attorneys controversy
Wikidash -- why did you delete all of this verbiage? Your edit summary didn't discuss this. Please come to the talk page and discuss why you would like to reword this paragraph and we can seek consensus on a rewrite. Thanks. Therefore 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Professors rock
Wikidash -- The "Professors Rock" citation was incorrect (it was pointing to the "leans to the right" info. I searched the Princeton Review extensively and can't find it. Please provide or it will need to be removed. Therefore 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to User:Calliopejen1 I got the reference: . But the school doesn't appear on the listing. Mercer is #9. I agree, then, that it should be deleted. Therefore 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, without a source it doesn't belong. This page is going to have to be watched. C56C 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.princetonreview.com/law/research/rankings/rankings.asp This is what the Princeton review calls it.Wikidash 02:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct. But the category does not include Regent in its rankings. So how can it be included in the article? Therefore 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Competition
This section doesn't belong. We don't keep track of events/school competition wins or loses. It adds nothing to the article. C56C 19:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be curious to hear what others say. It was pretty noteworthy at the time. I read about it because it was considered a bit of a surprise. Although I question whether the quote from the person from the Pat Robertson org from townhall.com satisifies WP:RS (though it might), my opinion is that the event is noteworthy. I can easily find several cites for that more than satisfy WP:RS. Even the Boston Globe article mentions it. Thoughts? Therefore 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: I could not find any national reference to this -- I don't recall where I heard about it. I searched both Google and the New York Times and Lexis databases. This is of course not comprehensive by any means. I did find a local new article . The only other references are a PR release from the university (is that WP:RS?) and blogs. However, I still believe this is notable. I found one other college which includes this information: Thomas Goode Jones School of Law which has only provisional approval from the ABA, but that is it. I believe this can be mentioned as it is notable. Here is the proper notation:"Regent Law won first place in the 2006-2007 American Bar Association's National Negotiation Competition, winning over 220 other schools and succeeding Harvard, the previous year's winner. In 2005-2006, the college took first place in the National Appellate Advocacy Competition, beating out 150 other national colleges." This wording does use the university's press release. Thoughts? Therefore 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The press release is a RS, but it doesn't matter. A football game gets more coverage than this event. Whether they came in first, third or last, it doesn't belong. Do you see anything about how University of Notre Dame's football team did this or last season? No because it doesn't belong. Do you see a discussion about every single major game of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football? No because it doesn't belong. This is an encyclopedia. A 2006 competition is trivia, it means little to nothing for someone wanting to read about Regent. Arbustoo 00:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I get your point, just not your example. In fact, University of Notre Dame includes "In 2007, Notre Dame played LSU in the Sugar Bowl where they lost to the Tigers" and mentions all of their trophies plus a link to Notre Dame Fighting Irish which itself includes a link to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football which discusses in detail each season. A smorgasborg of trivia.


 * But I understand your opinion. My view is that this is a notable fact about a law school that happens to lack a notable football team -- it is not a discussion of the interim regional competitions but the national. I think we risk, also, by excluding this sort of information, that we may be exposing the article to other exclusions based on the argument that it isn't directly related to the activities of the school. But I will be led by consensus. Therefore 00:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that because it was covered in a local newspaper and mentioned in the Globe article, I believe that raises the notability factor in terms of verification. Personally, if I was a prospective law student, I would find this interesting. Therefore 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this is worthy enough to be in the article, though I don't feel terribly strongly about it. Looking at the competition homepage, I doubt that the competition results are reflective of the quality of the law school as a whole.  If you look at the pages describing finalists in all categories in past years, they aren't distributed in the way you would expect--with top-ranked law schools appearing more frequently, and lower-ranked law schools appearing less frequently.  (Also, if the unaccredited Thomas Goode Jones School of Law mentions this award on their page but past winner Harvard Law does not, it seems more likely that this is a competition that law schools don't care about very much, unless they're clinging to every award they can find.  Disclosure:I'm an HLS student--I used that example because I'm too lazy to find another highly-ranked previous winner that doesn't list it on their wikipedia page or elsewhere...)  These competitions are two-person teams competing against two-person teams from other schools, and it seems as though it's a reflection on students' priorities at these schools, and whether there are a few very smart kids from the law school any given year.  Has anyone found any articles by unbiased sources inside the legal community that says these awards are reflective of law school quality?  (Besides the man who's working for an organization founded by Regent's founder, obviously.) Calliopejen1 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that explains it -- you're still steamed you guys lost. (joke there, I hope I don't have to say, but I did anyway) OK, I get the point. A quick search of Lexis (and NYT) finds only local papers covering their local schools winning any of the competitions. The HLS The Record brags about other moot court competitions but not this one. Yes, this is Regent clinging to the only good press they are going to receive this year. I viewed this pretty much as a compromise point with Wikidash. Therefore 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It adds nothing to the article. This is a university with many different departments active with many different competitions. It is POV to single one out-- singling out a successful competition. If this is notable beyond your average competition, I haven't read anything to convince me of it. Arbustoo 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Only the Boston Globe's "The school has also recently won moot-court and negotiation competitions, beating out teams from top-ranked law schools." I hope you consider that article material. Unless you are arguing that Savage's decision to include it was POV. That mention plus the local newspaper's mention makes it notable. Therefore 02:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was: "It adds nothing to the article." As Moot court explains it is an extracurricular activity. Clubs, sports games, and so on add nothing to the article. A local mention does not make an event notable, anymore than a high school football game is notable because a local paper mentions who won and who scored what. For the record wikipedia has plently of high school articles that don't need cruft. Arbustoo 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All true. But the Boston Globe mention trumps that. Therefore 02:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite as the Globe mentions it one sentence. That one sentence is trival coverage: no dates, no titles, not even the name of the competition. However, the Globe article also mentions a newsletter about Lawrence v. Texas, which took up two paragraphs. As you mentioned the law case is also mentioned by other sources.
 * So if the competition is so prestigious why do we only have two independent sources: a local paper, and one sentence claim in a Boston Globe that is mostly critical of the school?
 * It seems silly to add something in on the basis of a one sentence (without any context) trival mention. On the other hand, should we add Lawrence v. Texas in since it is mentioned more widely? Arbustoo 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to remember this is a very small school and isn't typically covered. There is more negative POV then positive POV because of this being a conservative school.


 * Regent was a lower-ranked school than the typical alma mater of DOJ employees, and its graduates tended to have less experience in civil rights law.
 * This is definitely not the case and should be deleted. Less experience in Civil Rights law. Without this part the first part isn't very relevant. Should be deleted. Also if you research alumni many got government jobs so this is false.


 * Recommended change: Regent University highlighted that at least 150 graduates have served in the George W. Bush administration, as noted on their "Quick Facts" page.[14] The Regent Law school garnered unwanted attention in 2007, when Monica Goodling, a Regent graduate, invoked her fifth amendment rights to avoid testifying about White House involvement in the U.S. attorneys controversy.[2]


 * The Bush administration appointed the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James, as director of the Office of Personnel Management and increased opportunity for Regent alumni to be hired."[2] Although, Regent was a lower-ranked school than the typical alma mater of DOJ employees.Wikidash 03:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It stands as is. Your changes are POV. The fact is the school has or had less than qualified people getting jobs in a govenment department is important for several reasons. So is the rankings and other commentary from solid sources.


 * If you think the Boston Globe is wrong, contact them. Until they retract it the claim will be left in.


 * Regent was the LOWEST RANKED. Thus, it cannot be typical unless EVERYONE attended Regent. That is worth mentioning. Also you appear to be a WP:SPA-- this isn't bad but is worth bringing it to other editors attention. Arbustoo 06:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, you seem to have a one side POV. Please find me other article where Regent alumni have no experience in Civil rights law. How to measure that? Do you even know what civil rights law encompasses? That is so unverifiable that is just ridiculous. Typical alma mater only means that typical DOJ employees came from a higher ranked school which is justified as a tier 4. It doesn't talk about their qualifications. Nevertheless, I still left this in as I think it's worth mentioning. I think my change is neutral. But I pose some real questions to this, what positions were they in in the DOJ? Internships? The DOJ have over 100,000 employees. If Regent only has a few hundred alumni from the law school. The exact number of employees is 112,500+ so if 150 Regent grads worked in the DOJ. That would be .0013% of the DOJ.


 * Despite me only really caring about this article as I am a WP:BITE I think you should be contributing to this article by WP:NPOV.
 * To me this seems like another instance. Especially by looking at the pages you've edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidash (talk • contribs) 10:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * My point of view is where the evidence is. If you get a source for Regent's grads' civil rights experience add it to the article. Removing cited material is not neutral.


 * Bringing up something writen by a creepy spammer who has a life time banning will not get cited material removed. It will, on the other hand, get you banned like that user. You are a WP:SPA, if you continue in this manner doing posts like you did will you be blocked. Arbustoo 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright civil rights law is basically law on rights of people and constitutional law. It has classes on International Human Rights, Christian Foundations of Law (you might not like it but your God given rights) and these (:


 * LAW 683 Constitutional Law I – Constitutional Structure (3) Study of principles of U.S. constitutional law, in both historical and contemporary contexts. Subject matter areas include: the biblical, philosophical, historical and political background of the U.S. Constitution; judicial review; the distribution and separation of governmental powers in the U.S. federal system, with emphasis upon the federal commerce, taxing and foreign affairs powers; and intergovernmental relations.


 * LAW 684 Constitutional Law II – Individual Rights (3)

Continuation of the study of principles of U.S. constitutional law, in both historical and contemporary contexts. Subject matter focuses on the First and Fourteenth Amendments, with emphasis on due process, equal protection, freedom of speech and press, and free exercise and non-establishment of religion. Prerequisite: I —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidash (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * That is WP:OR. Arbustoo 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikidash -- you are clearly working in good faith in putting forth your concerns with the article. Your comments are welcome. Particularly for someone new, it can be difficult to learn all about Wikipedia policies. Some important ones that everyone should keep in mind: "Be kind and patient with new users", "Act in a civil manner" and "Assume good faith."

As for your concern that the Regent article is implying that the university has no Civil Rights training, I don't think that is what it is doing. No question that Regent provides coursework in Civil Rights -- would have been difficult to get ABA accreditation otherwise. The Regent article doesn't state that all Regent hires in the Civil Rights Division have less Civil Rights experience than past candidates. Instead, the Boston Globe article states that new hires from all colleges in the past several years in the Civil Rights Division have had less Civil Rights experience in the so-called "real world," on average, than past hires. The Regent article states that the Globe article used one candidate from Regent as an illustrative example of that assertion. If you read the Regent article's paragraph concerning the Bush hires, I hope you can see that it has been written in a NPOV fashion. I welcome any further discussion you might have. Therefore 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodling section is not appropriate for this article
The mention of Monica Goodling is irrelevant for this article. The sins of the alumni have no place on a school's wikipedia page. Should the Yale article have an entire section on the problems of George W. Bush? If the Harvard page allowed the problems with its alumnae, its article would be the longest on Wikipedia. Goodlings inclusion is a POV attempt to smear the school by guilt by association.

Secondly, the U.S. attorney section is written in a POV manner from editors who are arguing only for the inclusion of the negative components of a single article and excluding even the positive pieces of said article. Therefore 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is different from the GWB/Yale connection. If GWB suddenly started hiring underqualified grads from his alma mater, meriting mention on Yale's "quick facts" webpage, then that connection might merit mention on the Yale page.  Obviously the university used to think this was important or they wouldn't have put it on their own website!  This shows the university's influence in conservative circles and in the government.  In fact, this is probably one of the most notable things about the university, considering it's not really notable for its academics.  I suggest that this section be moved out of the law school section though and just put as a seciton of the article as a whole, because it's not just connected to the law school, and because the former dean who is implicated in this was affiliated with the govt school.  If we want to fix the POV, I suggest finding a WP:RS conservative commentator who says this isn't a big deal, and placing it alongside the boston globe/krugman criticism. Calliopejen1 22:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Goodling's name and this school are covered in many sources. Arbustoo 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the section by taking from the Globe article those things that related directly to Regent which includes some statement of balance that were in the article.


 * Asserting that Yale hires are qualified was not the point of the article. The article did not state that Regent hires were underqualified. Therefore 22:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the earning the 136th ranking shows that 135 schools are better. Arbustoo 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Details concerning Goodling belong on the Goodling and U.S. attorney controversy pages. Statements from the articles which are generalizations for which Regent was used as an illustrative example, are not relevant to the school's article. Therefore 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * True, however it was because of Goodling that people have focused on this school. Arbustoo 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that the section isn't relevant, just the Goodling and the issues involving generalized statements are not relevant. Plus the POV of not including balance which is easily gleaned from the article. Therefore 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you should have not named this section "Goodling section is not appropriate for this article." Arbustoo 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern with bias is not with the article -- it's from the news division of the Globe, not the editorial section. This paragraph is properly cited. My concern was with the writing of the paragraph. Therefore 23:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your rewrite is fine with me. Arbustoo 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bush administration hires
Calliopejen1 -- your rewrite makes the paragraph more readable and clear. I have a concern with:"Though Savage's commentary, which focused on the law school, was mostly critical (he noted Regent's 'dismal numbers' from past years and quoted a critic of the school who said '[y]ou can't underestimate the quality of a lot of the people that are there'),"The quotation shouldn't be used as an example of Savage's criticism -- it's the opposite. Better to include the quotation as part of the noted improvements.

I also am concerned with the use of the word "commentary" in this context -- this wasn't a comment piece but a news article. Additionally, it is arguable that the wording "which focused on the law school, was mostly critical" could be excised as being unnecessary (Occam in mind) and is possibly a judgment call on your part. My reading of the article is that the real focus was on the Bush administration's hiring of sub-par candidates. What do you think? Therefore 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm arguing for a return to:"While noting Regent's 'dismal numbers' from past years, Savage noted improvements: 71% of graduates pass the bar exam on the first attempt and the school 'recently won moot-court and negotiation competitions, beating out teams from top-ranked law schools.' Savage quoted a prominent critic of the school, 'You can't underestimate the quality of a lot of the people that are there.'"or some version that you may clean up. Therefore 23:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Use as the reference that the Globe article was focusing on the Civil Rights division. Therefore 00:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Purge Possible?
This is getting ridiculous to navigate and the columns have changed drastically. Can we purge this talk section and start fresh. As the consensus is evolved the article drastically. Thus we will be able to Talk about the editing better.

Votes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidash (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * There is an archiving capability but I do not know its mechanics. I think you will find, Wikidash, that this talk page hasn't yet approached the sizes of many other talk pages. And typically, pages aren't archived while a discussion is in place -- this allows new editors to be brought up to date with the dialog to date.


 * Wikidash -- don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks!Therefore 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I Agree, but it just seems so disorganized. Ick. Wikidash 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No its not long enough for an archive. Arbustoo 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikidash -- I encourage you to use the table of contents at the top of the talk page. We've segregated out individual subjects for discussion to help in organization. Therefore 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Barry Lynn quote -- negative or positive
Calliopejen1 -- I'll invite you once again to come to the talk page and discuss this issue.

You consider this quote:"'You can't underestimate the quality of a lot of the people that are there.'"as a negative comment about the school, ala, I guess, Henry Adam's "There is no such thing as an underestimate of average intelligence." However, take this quote in Savage's context (emphasis mine):"Even a prominent critic of the school's mission of integrating the Bible with public policy vouches for Regent's improvements. Barry Lynn, the head of the liberal Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said Regent is churning out an increasingly well-trained legal army for the conservative Christian movement."

"'You can't underestimate the quality of a lot of the people that are there,' said Lynn, who has guest-lectured at Regent and debated professors on its campus."The context makes it clear that Lynn was giving a warning not to underestimate them. Therefore, your framing it as a negative is your take (wp:or) and not Savage's -- and Savage's is the one that counts. &mdash;   &#8756; Therefore  talk  : 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again Therefore! I hadn't gone back to reread the article there, so I was just going by the meaning of the words alone. If that's what Savage says, that's what Savage says.  However, considering it's so confusing I might omit it from the article.  Any plain reading of the quote suggests it means exactly the opposite, which probably would mislead readers.  Calliopejen1 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree -- I'll give a shot at rewrite, avoiding the confusing quote but keeping in Lynn's sentiment. &mdash;   &#8756; Therefore  talk  20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, your rewrite is excellent. &mdash;   &#8756; Therefore  talk  20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of ABA competitions
These competitions were removed again (I didn't put them back in). Please note that there is another notable reference to them: Bill Moyer's Journal, quoting "This year a Regent team won the American Bar Association's Negotiation competition - previously won by Harvard. Last year a Regent team won another national ABA Competition - previously won by Yale." This on top of Savage's reference (from the Boston Globe) along with the details in the school's press release makes this notable and should be included. C56C argues that this is not a "scoreboard." I am hoping that C56C is going through all the Notre Dame wiki pages and removing the mountains of results for the past 50 seasons for multiple sports. The reality is this competition was notable for a small college with a poor reputation. Savage and Moyers thought so. I think that should trump the opinion of others.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't see how two wins are wiki-worthy. Should we also include Bill Maher's comedic remarks about this place too? Its trival, rankings are not. As for Notre Dame's article its law school doesn't have any of the trival information. So what are you referring to? I'm willing to bet ND's law school (being top ranked in the US) has won at least two competitions as well.C56C 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for being unclear. My point concerning Notre Dame was a counter to your "WP IS NOT a scorecard for schools". This page, one of many, indicates that is not the case. Yes, its about football and not legal competitions, but the point is clear: your statement is not, in fact, WP policy. These national wins (not scores, but the end result of a competitive series of moot courts) by Regent University, found notable by at least two WP:RS, WP:V journalists (Bill Maher, though much admired, is not a journalist -- not even a faux one), are notable. If ND's law school chooses not to include them, that isn't the guide for not including them here. I do understand that your opinion is that they are not notable. However, they are verifiable, notable facts from reliable sources. If Savage isn't considered a WP:RS, then how can the rest of the article stand? Is this really less notable than which Supreme Court decision one graduate of Regent considers most important? Please note what is notable: not actually the fact that they won the competitions, but that they unexpectedly won the competitions previously won by Harvard and Yale.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the Alexandria campus exist still?
According to the Alexandria campus is "transitioning" to online degrees for the DC area. Should mention of the campus be deleted as desired by User talk:Dgnjunk? However, according to the regent page, the School of Education will continue at the satellite campus. And the campus is mentioned at the School of Education's FAQ "Exactly where are your campuses located?" Answer: "There is also a satellite campus in the historic Old Town district of Alexandria, VA." Plus, the School of Education's Academic page lists, under "More Information", the DC campus. Without further verification, I don't see why the mention of the satellite campus should be removed.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Dgnjunk's edits
I reverted Dgnjunk's (1st time editor, only editing this page) May 30 edits. He deleted en masse much of the article's content, including the name of the Chancellor (Pat Robertson) in the infobox, mention of Robertson in the history, mention of the US World rankings, all mention of Bush Administration hires, Monica Goodling -- all this without any comment or discussion. I added back in all of Dgnjunk's constructive edits, such as:


 * Corrected (and cited) "establishment date" from 1977 to 1978


 * Corrected (and cited) from 9 to 8 "established schools"


 * Added citation for "The vast majority of Regent's students are enrolled in one of seven graduate or first-prof schools."


 * Changed "VA" to "Virginia"


 * Added School of Business is now the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship


 * Changed Communication and the Arts to Communication & the Arts

plus minor mods to the Alumni (e.g., grad years).

I did not retain these deletions:


 * The Alexandria satellite campus (see above)


 * The fact that Pat Robertson is the chancellor and the founder


 * Much of the history, including motto


 * The (attributed) facts about their historical bar pass rates


 * The (attributed) US News Report rankings. These rankings are a common gauge. However, through discussions on the talk page, balance was added by including criticism of the rankings.


 * The (well attributed) Bush hires administration paragraph


 * Mention of Monica Goodling

I have invited Dgnjunk to the talk page to discuss these items. On the 31st, 198.49.157.11 (an open Regent University IP) came on and attempted many of these same edits but were rv'ed by another editor.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of US News school rankings
To Wikidash: There is, in fact, a rank by number, as supported by the citations. US News is not the only ranker, as supported by the Princeton review info in this section. To avoid undue weight given to the criticism (some editors believe that criticism isn't appropriate here at all), I included your information by adding in the group that criticizes the rankings along with the others. Detailed criticism of the rankings are appropriate on Criticism of college and university rankings and not here. I've added a wikilink to this page. SmallRepair 22:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

== Criticism of US News school rankings. Hey I agree that is better citing the article, although this is still wrong. Only the first tier is assigned numerical rank the article is wrong. You can even check U.S. news website. Check this reference. American Bar Association. Wikidash 05:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I've edited in reference to this, "The age of a law school makes a huge difference, says professor Michael Herz of Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law. Of all the schools accredited in the past 25 years, not one is listed in the U.S. News top 50. Go back 30 years, and Brigham Young University, accredited in 1974, makes the cut at No. 37. The vast majority of law schools accredited within the past 30 years are clustered in the third and fourth tiers. Does that mean these schools are inferior? No, but a national reputation takes a long time to develop."

http://www.abanet.org/lsd/stulawyer/mar03/rankinggame.html


 * Small, Alright I think this is a good compromise edit. Proven its "new school" compared to institutions among Harvard and top 50. This is demonstrated in the two articles. Also the criticism is major, and of course U.S. news is going to defend it, shouldn't really be included. The one article cited actually was cited poorly for that reference in fact the opposite. Wikidash 05:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi WD -- good to see you editing again. I reverted your most recent change to the rankings paragraph. The current paragraph, modified with your recommended change to include the Group of Annapolois criticism along with a wikilink to the general criticism of college rankings, reflects a consensus. I'm sure you will recall (see above) that this paragraph was already a result of a compromise discussion, attempting to give due weight to the fact of the rankings along with criticism of same. By loading down the paragraph with more criticism defeats the objective of balance.


 * Some specific problems I have with your most recent edit:


 * The numeric ranking of 136, sourced properly twice, is therefore a verifiable, attributable statement. You state that the sources must be wrong. But your personal opinion on this matter doesn't override that this statement is verifiable. You state that only the first tier has numeric rankings. Please provide a verifiable source that states that. As discussed above when we first worked on this issue, numeric rankings are only available if you purchase the report and are not available on-line gratis. I have faith that the sources used had access to the complete report.
 * Please edit the page Criticism of college and university rankings and include the criticism concerning the correlation between the age of a college's founding and its ranking. It doesn't belong on this page.
 * You changed the "many college presidents" to "majority of college presidents". But that isn't supported by the attribution. The Group of Annapolis doesn't reflect the majority -- unless you think the US has only 360 colleges. "Many" is accurate -- "majority" is unfounded.
 * You state that "of course US News" is going to defend it. If we are going to include criticism of the rankings, then we need to include balance of its defense. That is the consensus paragraph we hammered out a while back. You state that the source for this statement is not good. But it is a letter from US News to the Washington Monthly defending said policy. An on-point source. The fact is, WD, that other WP college sites only include the fact of the ratings. I believe if we put it up for a consensus vote, most would agree that it would be sufficient to simply state the ranking. But I agree, in this specific context, that pointing out that criticism of the rankings exist and pointing to the page that discusses them is called for. This paragraph is balanced.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  20:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey therefore,welcome back to Regent! for the rankings....this is the only source I've ever seen for ranking this 136th. I honestly believe it's wrong and was put into it to make the law school view more negatively in the article. I own the U.S. news ratings book and it shows what I'm stating, unfortunately it's not in the about section. Also here are internet sources. From what I've read and have always known it's TOP 100 then Tier 3 and Tier 4.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040406.html http://www.abanet.org/lsd/stulawyer/mar03/rankinggame.html http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/services/research/guides/united_states/basics/publishing_in_law_reviews.php http://usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/tools/brief/law_srch_advanced_brief.php#rank

Notice on the U.S. news they have top 100 then tier 3 and tier 4. This should finalize this issue. If you pay it doesn't tell you.

Also secondly on the defense portion, the article stated was from 2000 about 7 years ago and wasn't a very good source for its defense. Also the source I was talking about specifically said that U.S. news was the most popular/recognized even though its not a good methdodology.

Though I don't really care about the justified methodology part, it being a new law school is important for this ranking as cited earlier and should be included.Wikidash 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After further research, I believe Wikidash is correct. From the US News site: "For law, we publish the top 100 and list the remaining schools in two tiers (the third and fourth)." Since Savage in the Boston Globe article stated that Regent was "essentially" 136th, I take it that he calculated this himself from the data. To include "136" would require a qualification -- something like, "according to Savage's calculations, ...." It isn't needed.


 * As for the 2000 source for US News' defense, I doubt that their defense would be that different today.


 * I agree that the second source -- the citation for the statement "Despite these criticisms, the rankings are the most recognized and play a very dramatic role in the world of legal education." is a weak cite. It does, however, support the sentiment that the rankings are influential. The fact that they are so influential is why they are given such (justifiable) scrutiny.


 * There are two reasons why I am hesitant to load down the paragraph anymore: a) Detailed criticisms of the rankings belong on the criticism page which is now included and b) Any criticisms would have to be balanced here by defenses. Best to keep the paragraph on point.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  07:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush administration hires
This article should be used to rewrite some of the Bush admin section. Though don't feel like doing it right now. Although I propose that we make it a bit more neutral and it be included as part of Regent hiring or such. This recent Virginia pilot article is more neutral and contains more relevant information. Since now the Monica Blondling bruising of this school is over.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=126866&ran=91097&tref=po


 * Thanks for the new source -- a good one indeed. The Bush administration hires paragraph is another one that was hammered out for balance. I think the first couple of sentences could be deleted. In other words, I would replace this: "A Regent web page claimed that 150 graduates have served in the George W. Bush administration. This statement was removed shortly after this claim was reported in the national media, but as of April 20, 2007, is again listed on the page. The language was changed from stating that the graduates were 'serving' in the Bush administration, to state that they 'have served' in the Bush administration, an apparent response to the resignation of Monica Goodling." with this: "A Regent web page claimed that 150 graduates have served in the George W. Bush administration." Besides that unnecessary wordiness, the paragraph has been carefully crafted for balance and is well sourced. The Pilot article does not seem to add anything to the specifics of the paragraph -- i.e., relating to Bush hires. The paragraph includes what the Pilot article discuses: improved scores, moot court wins and positive comments by Barry Lynn. The Pilot article highlights the Princeton rankings, already included in this WP page. I presume you don't want to add in Robertson's comments about assassinating Chavez or "that God punished Israel's former prime minister Ariel Sharon with a stroke." The article highlights much about Robertson but I don't believe (personally) that this sort of information is appropriate for this article. Just as I argued against including the details concerning Monica Goodling. And the graphic the Pilot article uses, in fact, puts the school in a comparatively poor light.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Therefore make that change, it's kind of wordy and pointless and was hammered out because of the Monica Blondling press. The reason they did that was because probably 150 weren't currently serving and they didn't realize that web page was wrong until Goodling got in the press. It's kind of a liability. I don't think Regent should have a whole section on this either, it kind of looks dumb. It should be like in the overview or quick facts or like a at a glance section. There is some good information on this that should be included in this article. I see that page is down, but as most people haven't notice Regent central site has gone through a major redesign.

http://www.regent.edu/about_us/quick_facts.cfm Wikidash 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, Wikidash. When they updated it, I updated this page with detailed enrollment data -- notice this link is used as a footnote 8 times!


 * I made the above change to the paragraph -- deleting the excess wordage.


 * The Bush hires paragraph is not about Monica Goodling. As part of the consensus work, information about Goodling was redacted as being irrelevant. I don't believe I would characterize the section as looking dumb, as it were. Each sentence of the paragraph was carefully crafted to insure balance. It is the nature of Wikipedia that this kind of information is included -- allowable as long as it follows the WP guidelines for NPOV, verified with no original research. If you read the above talk page, you will see that much work, by consensus, was put into this paragraph to insure its acceptability. Presuming you are a Regent U partisan (and I apologize if that is not the case), I can understand your dislike of the paragraph. At Reed College there are paragraphs discussing drug use, atheism and communism and Reed is one of the best colleges in the US. The Bush paragraph, if read carefully sentence-by-sentence, is factually based. Thanks!  &#8756; Therefore  talk  07:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of controversy section
I removed this from the article:

-

Controversy

Regent University has been in many controversies over the years. Including having scientific and historical teachings far outside the mainstream of what is considered factual. Also many scholars and student research has been called into question and proven wrong by much more quantitative, compelling and carefully done studies.

Aggressively Anti-Gay and Disproved Research

For example of poorly done research that has been disproved by studies performed all over the world and that has been rejected by all but the furthest ideological organizations such as The Family Research Council (Which Regent is rumored to have close ties with along with other far-right ultra-orthodox Christian Organizations; though this can not be proven) is research equating male homosexuality with sexual abuse of young boys. It claims homosexual adult men are much more likely to sexually abuse boys then heterosexual men. The "research" has reached this "conclusion" based on the fact that of sexually abused children 1/3 of the cases are thought to involve boys. The problem with this conclusion; studies have proven that 97% of sexually abused boys are abused by heterosexual men. Meaning only 3% of sexually abused boys are abused by homosexual and bisexual men. Many other claims in the study are also unfounded by much better research. The study's insult of Pro Gay Organizations has been unfounded and the attempt to link boy-love with homosexuality is not supported by any mainstream homosexual organization. The so called research can be found at this link For the truth about the matter based on reputable research click on this link

The university is so anti-gay that it limits what homosexual students can do in the privacy of their own dormitory "...homosexual conduct or any other conduct, which violates Biblical standards, is prohibited."

-

It is written with a clear point-of-view, poorly sourced and makes many OR conclusions -- going as far as to bold "the truth." "Many scholars" is classic poorly sourced comments. The editor needs to rewrite after carefully reading WP standards.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pared down law school rankings
I removed the discussion of rankings altogether. Either take all rankings out (since all rankings are POV) or leave them be and accept that they will not always portray the school in a favorable light. (This is an encyclopedia, not a recruitment pamphlet.) It is most certainly not the appropriate venue to debate or contest the veracity of rankings generally. Madcoverboy 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Christian principles"
Need to be careful not to take at face value the claims by Regent's administration that its curriculum is based on "Christian principles." The administration would like us all to believe that Regent is truly Christian unlike, say, Notre Dame or Pacific Lutheran or Southern Methodist. It is inaccurate to let Regent and its ilk appropriate "Christian" to mean only its version of Christian. The small edit I did makes that point -- simply sourcing the claim, which is baldly evident on the institution's web site and publications -- without being needlessly argumentative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.46.238 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your remarks here certaintly don't sound like you're approaching from a neutral point of view at all. Your edit does not make any point at all.  The article does not say anything about it being the only Christian principles or even which Christian principles, nor does it "appropriate" Christian or indicate anywhere that its only Regent's version.  Your edit has been reverted. AnmaFinotera 20:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with AnmaFinotera that adding "the administration says" is not a NPOV approach. However, now that the topic has been broached, I am thinking that "a curriculum based on Christian principles" is problematic. Exactly what is the source for this statement? If you go here it says,"Regent University is the nation's academic center for Christian thought and action, with strategic campus positioning and a multitude of online learning programs available worldwide." That self-description, I don't believe, would be an appropriate description either. I don't see other Christian affiliated schools making this statement. I would recommend we excise that text from the lead. Then, if needed, this could be expanded in another section with both the school's characterizations balanced by other reliable, third party characterizations. Regardless

, I think that including "based on Christian principles" should be cut. Thoughts? SmallRepair 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've been mulling it over, I agree the statement as written can be problematic, however I do not think it should be cut all together, maybe just rewritten. Perhaps rather than saying its courses are based on Christian principles, just note that it is a Christian private school similar to the way it is done in Taylor University, Baylor University, etc.  AnmaFinotera 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds perfectly NPOV and accurate. I'll let you change. SmallRepair 01:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, done. Also tweaked it to read a little less stiff :P AnmaFinotera 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bush administration hires NPOV and general clean up/expansion
What, if anything, does this section have to do with Academics at Regent? I've tagged for neutrality, because it doesn't sound like it is maintaining NPOV. Almost all of the sources are opinion pieces from non-neutral parties with only a minor refuting. The final line, about Monica, does not have anything to do with the school at all and seems more trivia than anything else. I think this section needs to be cut out all together.

For alumni mentions, the regular alumni section as seen in other good university articles would be more appropriate. For some example articles: Duke University (notice no Lacross rape section, only a one line mention in the recent histoy), Texas A&M University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (shooting, again, not a huge section, but one sentence mention despite all the controversy around it). Thoughts? AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the last paragraph concerning Monica Goodling isn't relevant and should go. The Duke University and VPI articles make only a mention of their respective controversies but provide wikilinks to the extensive articles that describe these incidents. Presuming you are not suggesting that a new article on this issue be created, I am unsure if these pages are analogous. Reed College has an entire section devoted to drug use and politics, arguably not applicable to its academics but still a notable issue.


 * The primary source for this section isn't an opinion piece but instead two Boston Globe news articles. I am unsure why the mention of other sources that are clearly identified as opinion writers from reliable sources are inappropriate in a Wikipedia article -- they serve to prove the notability. According to WP:NPOV:"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints."


 * I'm sure you have reviewed the above discussions where an effort was made to keep the tone neutral arriving at this consensus paragraph. If you have specific concerns with the wording then I'm sure we can develop an improved section. Or if you have other WP:RSs that can serve to counter the statements by Charlie Savage (such as Barry Lynn) or have other opinion pieces that balance the ones listed, that would be great. Personally, I don't see the Lynn comments as minor: They put into the record the recent, significant improvements at the school plus its notable wins in debate competitions. But additional statements of this kind would be helpful, I agree. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Reed College article does mention its drug use and politics, but it is under a reputation section, not under academics (which would at least be a more appropriate filing of this topic). The Boston Globe article "Civil rights hiring shifted in Bush era" does not mention Regent University at all, so how can it be a main source for the section? Applying it to the discussion when the article itself does not would fall under original research to me.  I also don't think saying serving the George Bush administration is the same as what the article actual says "serving the federal government."  Bush is the President, not the entire government.  In changing the wording, the source is being misused.  For me, the source article is being subtly changed and misused, making it more accusatorial and giving a negative view of the school.  Perhaps part of it is just the way it is written, but it doesn't come across as neutral to me, but as a subtle accusation of some kind.  At the least, I feel very strongly that it has absolutely no place under the Academic section and should either be made a main section, or formatted similar to that Reed article and put in a Reputation section, which could also lead to some nice article expansion to discuss rankings, etc.


 * For other improvements, I personally think the Alumni and notable faculty section seen in many uni articles as prose looks nicer, but I can see either side of that (the table is certainly nicer than a straight list either way). :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this paragraph along with other issues should be listed under "Reputation". Agreed that the second Boston Globe article isn't a valid direct source except as background since it is referenced in the primary BG article).


 * The statement, "A Regent web page stated 150 graduates have served in the George W. Bush administration" was sourced directly from the Regent web site itself. They have since removed this statement and the cache link has expired. The statement is supported by the Krugman and Washington Post sources. It is included in this Bill Moyers broadcast:"Since 2001, 150 of the University's students have worked in the Bush Administration."


 * The primary Boston Globe article doesn't only say "serving the federal government" but instead:"Regent has had no better friend than the Bush administration. Graduates of the law school have been among the most influential of the more than 150 Regent University alumni hired to federal government positions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to a university website."Do you think the current version, "served in the GWB administration" it is an invalid paraphrase of this statement? Though this statement is backed by the original Regent site and supported by three other sources, would this alteration be more accurate?"A Regent web page stated 150 graduates have served in the federal government under the George W. Bush administration"


 * I agree that the Boston Globe news article is using Regent as an example of what it reports to be a diminishing of credentials and experience in the Civil Rights Division. This section is written in a neutral tone of voice -- in other words, not that there isn't a point of view being described here but that it is properly attributed to the author of the article. Again, from WP:NPOV:"The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'. ... All editors and all sources have biases - what matters, is how we combine them to create a neutral article. ... Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion."However, please parse the paragraph and highlight where the source is being misused and changed, subtly or otherwise as this should be repaired. Let's go a-parsin':


 * {| border="3"


 * Sentence || Source
 * Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage, noting that previously it was rare for Regent graduates to join the government,
 * Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government.
 * has suggested that the appointment of Office of Personnel Management director Kay Coles James, formerly dean of Regent's government school, caused this sharp increase in Regent alumni employed in the government
 * But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James, to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni.
 * Savage used Regent as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division
 * The graduate from Regent -- which is ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place -- was not the only lawyer with modest credentials to be hired by the Civil Rights Division after the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring. The changes resulted in a sometimes dramatic alteration to the profile of new hires beginning in 2003, as the Globe reported last year after obtaining resumes from 2001-2006 to three sections in the civil rights division. Conservative credentials rose, while prior experience in civil rights law and the average ranking of the law school attended by the applicant dropped.
 * Savage illustrated the increased politicization in the Justice Department's hiring practices with the example of a Regent graduate who stated he may have obtained a job after telling his interviewer that Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down an anti-sodomy law, was the Supreme Court decision from the last 20 years with which he disagreed most
 * In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people's civil rights. ... the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring.
 * }
 * Savage used Regent as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division
 * The graduate from Regent -- which is ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place -- was not the only lawyer with modest credentials to be hired by the Civil Rights Division after the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring. The changes resulted in a sometimes dramatic alteration to the profile of new hires beginning in 2003, as the Globe reported last year after obtaining resumes from 2001-2006 to three sections in the civil rights division. Conservative credentials rose, while prior experience in civil rights law and the average ranking of the law school attended by the applicant dropped.
 * Savage illustrated the increased politicization in the Justice Department's hiring practices with the example of a Regent graduate who stated he may have obtained a job after telling his interviewer that Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down an anti-sodomy law, was the Supreme Court decision from the last 20 years with which he disagreed most
 * In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people's civil rights. ... the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring.
 * }
 * }


 * I have no opinion either way on the alumni section. I'm not the author of that section nor even this section, per se. I became involved as an editor trying to reach consensus. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 07:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this: "According to Regent, more than 150 graduates have been hired by the federal government since George W. Bush came to office in 2001" While Bush is the President, he doesn't have a hand in every single federal job appointment, so I think this wording would work better (and be more accurate for the source, since we need to replace the Regent link with another one).  Looking at the side by side, I think the first two are okay.  To me, one big misuse is


 * "Savage used Regent as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division"


 * Savage did not use Regent as an example, he used a very specific graduate as an example. While he included a note about Regent being tier four, the over all sentence is still about that graduate and those from other schools.  I don't think it should be applied unilaterally to the whole school on that basis.


 * For
 * "Savage illustrated the increased politicization in the Justice Department's hiring practices with the example of a Regent graduate who stated he may have obtained a job after telling his interviewer that Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down an anti-sodomy law, was the Supreme Court decision from the last 20 years with which he disagreed most"


 * I'm kind of back and forth. I'm not really sure this is needed at all as part of the section, as the point seems to have already been made that the Bush administration has been favorable to Regent alumni. Beyond that, it seems more of a commentary on the conservative trend in the federal government as a whole rather than a testament about the school (nothing in the article states that Regent told him to answer that way or that it was specifically Regent that brought him to that conclusion, only his own beliefs). AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite
Great ideas. May I suggest this as a rewrite:"According to Regent, more than 150 graduates have been hired by the federal government since George W. Bush came to office in 2001. Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage, noting that previously it was rare for Regent graduates to join the government, has suggested that the appointment of Office of Personnel Management director Kay Coles James, formerly dean of Regent's government school, caused this sharp increase in Regent alumni employed in the government. Savage used a Regent graduate as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but, given Regent's school rankings, weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division. Similar assertions have been made by editorial columnists Dahlia Lithwick of the Washington Post, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, and the legal analyst for CBS News, Andrew Cohen of CBS News. and commentator Bill Moyers of PBS."

"However, Savage also suggested reported that the school had improved since its days of 'dismal numbers,' quoting a prominent critic of the school, Reverend Barry Lynn, who advised against 'underestimat[ing] the quality of a lot of the people that are there,' and noting the school's recent wins in national moot-court and negotiation competitions."Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better. A few minor suggestions, mostly geared towards over all readability :):

"More than 150 Regent graduates have been hired by the federal government since George W. Bush came to office in 2001. As it was previously rare for alumni to go into government, Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage suggested that the appointment of Office of Personnel Management director Kay Coles James, the former dean of Regent's government school, caused this recent sharp increase in Regent alumni employed in the government. An article about a recent Regent graduate who interviewed for a government position and Regent's low school rankings have been cited have frequently been cited as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights law experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division. In addition to Savage, similar assertions have been made by editorial columnists Dahlia Lithwick of the Washington Post, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, the legal analyst for CBS News, Andrew Cohen and commentator Bill Moyers of PBS"

"However, Savage also noted that the school had improved since its days of 'dismal numbers' and that the school's has had recent wins in national moot-court and negotiation competitions. Though a prominent critic of the school, Reverend Barry Lynn advised against 'underestimat[ing] the quality of a lot of the people that are there.'"Thoughts?

AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm always grateful for people like you who can improve my writing style. Thanks! A minor copyedit I think is in order:"More than 150 Regent graduates have been hired by the federal government since George W. Bush came to office in 2001. As it was previously rare for alumni to go into government, Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage suggested that the appointment of Office of Personnel Management director Kay Coles James, the former dean of Regent's government school, caused this recent sharp increase in Regent alumni employed in the government. An article about a recent Regent graduate who interviewed for a government position and Regent's low school rankings have been cited have frequently been cited as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights law experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division. In addition to Savage, similar assertions have been made by editorial columnists Dahlia Lithwick of the Washington Post, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, the legal analyst for CBS News, Andrew Cohen and commentator Bill Moyers of PBS"


 * "However, Savage also noted that the school had improved since its days of 'dismal numbers' and that the school's has had recent wins in national moot-court and negotiation competitions. Though a prominent critic of the school, Reverend Barry Lynn advised against 'underestimat[ing] the quality of a lot of the people that are there.'"Do you think that would do it? Do you mind if I do the work of incorporating it into the article so I can be sure the references are up-to-date? One last suggestion, possibly, should we shorten the statement about the other commentators to read:"In addition to Savage, similar assertions have been made by several other commentators." and then just line-up the references. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, no prob and glad you like. :) Good catch on the copyedit and yes, I think we could shorten the statement. I started to, but was still kind of debating it.  As for incorporating, go for it :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. It reads so much better now and it certainly belongs in a "Reputation" section rather than "Academics". Thanks! &#8756; Therefore | talk 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Most prestigious Christian law schools in the United States.
I removed "and is considered one of the most prestigious Christian law schools in the United States." from the "Law school" section as part of the description of the school. This a) belongs in the newly minted Reputation section and b) needs to have the opinion explicitly sourced. &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was undecided about keeping it in, so I just tagged it, but I agree with the reasons for removal all together. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring
I just finished giving the article a little restructuring, and adding some sections with expand tags to encourage expansion and act as reminds for what's missing. I also tagged the notable people section to go to prose rather than tables, and cleaned up some more references where possible. In doing this restructuring and clean up, I carefully studied the University Project MOS, and some of the featured university articles including Duke University, Texas A&M University, and Ohio Wesleyan University. Hopefully others agree these are good changes and the new empty sections will encourage expansion. I hope to work on those sections myself, as time permits, as well. Disagree? Suggestions? Feedback? Let's discuss :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean up tag
My 2 cents: That is one ugly tag. ;) I recognize that WikiProject_Universities states that alumni should not be lists but a) it is commonly used (no excuse, per se, I know) and b) I would doubt that it will be fixed. The alumni list is not like (say) Duke University's more weightier list which reads better as prose. On the other hand, there is List of Duke University people, List of Harvard University people, List of Princeton University people and List of Yale University people. Lists (not even tables) are used at Reed College, Lewis & Clark College, and on and on. If the tag wasn't so darn intrusive, I would have a less of a problem. But, nonetheless, I really don't mind either way. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, true on the tags, but certainly makes ya want to do something to deal with it (even if its just get rid of it ;) I was thinking the alumni as prose would be better here in large part because it is a fairly short list.  Though it is true, lists are also very common, because they are just all around easier to create and maintain.  I think they just don't really do much to say why that alumni is notable, and tables are limited to how much can be added and still look semi-okay.  I had planned to spend sometime tonight working on prosing that section, but my wifi has been acting ridiculously flaky for the last few hours, so I didn't get a chance to. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your position. When an alumni section can be written in an interesting way, such as, "three presidents" or "a line of Senators" or such, it can be interesting. Frankly, I think in this case, a table is more readable. But if you put this into prose then naturally that will fit the Wikipedia standard. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize this is a small point (the tag bugs me for some reason). I'd like to take MIT as an example (it's fresh in my mind ;) ). Their alumni section is written in a prose manner:"Many of MIT's over 110,000 alumni and alumnae have had considerable success in scientific research, public service, education, and business. 27 MIT alumni have won the Nobel Prize and 37 have been selected as Rhodes Scholars. ... MIT alumni founded or co-founded many notable companies ... MIT alumni have also led other prominent institutions of higher education ... More than one third of the United States' manned spaceflights have included MIT-educated astronauts." Prose is appropriate because it can be written in broad, general terms about large portions of their alumni. Additionally, there is listing of their notable alumni at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni in tables and lists. I don't believe that the list here can be written in a prose form that would be as general as MIT's. An alphabetic list in a tabular form appears to be more appropriate. Again, in contrast to my apparent need to continually argue my position, I don't hold it strongly -- I just hate that tag! ;) &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, give me a little time to try writing it up as prose. If it sucks, we can stick with the table ;)  I'm launching a huge project tomorrow, so after that (and a ton of sleep), I'll have time to really work on it with a clear mind (along with hopefully expanding those other sections). Just don't scroll down until then  *grin*  AnmaFinotera 20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Monica Goodling redux
Madcoverboy added the Monica Goodling details to the article which was then subsequently reversed. I agree with this reversal. Please read above at Talk:Regent University for the discussion about this matter and why we concluded its inclusion was inappropriate in this section. It is mentioned, appropriately, in the Alumni section. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I commend Therefore and AnmaFinotera for greatly improving the structure and tone of this article from drive-by vandal-tripe and POV-pushing into a readable and honest article. I certainly never had the grit to dive into it despite my keeping an eye on it from my watchlist.


 * Nevertheless, I am concerned about how in a section on Bush administration hires, there is a gaping absence of any mention of Goodling or "Attorneygate". Regardless of your views on the controversy, among all the criterion for notability, Goodling's role and background inevitably garnered considerable scrutiny of the school. (Please note that I am not attacking the notability of Regent Law, it by all means warrants the same coverage in wikipedia that any other ABA-accredited law school should.) While a "guilt by association" strawman was constructed for Harvard & Yale, it is not by virtue of Bush or other controversial alumni that these schools achieved widespread notability/notoriety. Certainly, this should not be the central theme of the article, but it should not be relegated to a single table entry amidst otherwise distinguished alumni.


 * As the article reads now, it implies that there is/was a disproportionate representation of Regent Law alum within the federal government through Savage's reputation lens and the and the implicit accusation of Ms. James' conflict of interests as former dean and current OPM -- but such accusations and coverage only came to light by virtue of the "Attorneygate" scandal. No mention whatsoever is made in the body of this section about the scandal nor one of the school's alumni prominent involvement with it.


 * If this section truly was about allegations of disproportionate representation, then we need more than hair splitting over article(s) written by one columnist and some statistics about the number of positions open over the period, what percentage went to Regent alums, and how that deviated or didn't from previous hiring patterns. Moreover, there is no need to pipe in Savage's ass-covering about the quality of the school into this section - if its about the administration hires, then why the emphasis on a single columnist, some debate team wins, and some Reverend's comments? It's obvious that Goodling/Attorneygate is the elephant in the room everyone is tiptoeing around - the very reason this section exists and is justified is the aforementioned controversy.


 * All in all, it seems willfully negligent to ignore the impact of Goodling or "Attorneygate" within the section if there is to be a section at all.Madcoverboy (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also add that I have worked extensively on the MIT article where controversies involving school decisions figure prominently into its history. Each of these certainly garnered considerable press coverage during the time and by no means is that an exhaustive list of controversies. Nevertheless, they are mentioned prominently in the body and not relegated to an arcane subpage or listing elsewhere. The absence of Goodling/Attorneygate in the body of the article smacks of implicit revisionism. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "strawman" "hair splitting", "columnist" "ass-covering" "it's obvious" "willfully negligent" "implicit revionism" "some Reverend"


 * You do a fine job of leavening your argument with negative characterizations although I'm unsure if you provide sufficient support for each jibe.


 * Savage isn't a columnist but a journalist. There are four columnists that are also sources for this section so this section isn't dependent upon one source.


 * This section is not about the attorneygate controversy. It is about the changes in the hiring policies of the Ashcroft Department of Justice that opened it to less qualified candidates and Regent was used as an example.


 * But you cannot deny that one of the "less qualified candidates" who was hired became prominently involved in a major political scandal. As I've said before, I'm not trying to link the school with the scandal, but in a section on the controversy surrounding Bush hires, I don't understand why the most prominent Bush hire isn't included. Madcoverboy 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You state that Goodling is why Regent achieved widespread notability/notoriety. I'd appreciate it if you could go one step farther and support that statement. Are you saying that you never head of RU previously? Are you saying that there is nothing else about RU that previously opened it to controversy or notability? Regardless of your personal perceptions, do you believe that, in general, this is the first time the public has been made aware of RU's existence?


 * I had heard of Regent before, by only by virtue of being so enmeshed in the WikiProject Universities. However, here are some links about the ties between Goodling and Regent.(If these are already in the references, my apologies for repetition).
 * Washington Post "Start digging, and Goodling also looks to be the Forrest Gump of no comments: Here she is in 1997 fielding calls from reporters to the admissions office of Regent's School of Government."
 * PBS "One such political aspirant, former Justice Department official, Monica Goodling, has recently helped to thrust her alma mater into the spotlight"
 * Legal Times "But she quickly transferred to Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., a school founded by Pat Robertson. (The motto: "Christian Leadership to Change the World.") There, she enrolled in a joint public policy master's and law degree program. The school, which was accredited by the American Bar Association in 1996, has a standard law school curriculum, but also encourages students to talk and think about how law interacts with their faith and values."
 * Moreover, the ties between Goodling and Regent came up within the context of her Congressional testimony, which itself received a good amount of mainstream coverage.
 * National Review, WSJ, Messiah College, CBN News
 * My point is, given the extensive coverage trying to link Goodling's role in Attorneygate with her religious/educational background, this was a major event for Regent University. For a school that trumpeted its success in placing alumni into government, for a controversy involving the administration appointing candidates of allegedly lower quality to powerful positions, for one of those alumni hired thusly to then become involved in a major political scandal, and for the alumni's relations with his/her alma mater to be questioned not only in the media but during sworn Congressional testimony seems like an airtight case for inclusion in the body in anyone's book. Madcoverboy 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You state that Saveage was "ass-covering" in the article. I don't understand that characterization. Savage was doing what any good journalist and, in fact, Wikipedia editor writing about a contentious issue, must do: offer balance. The fact is, the school's numbers have improved significantly, it has won moot court competitions and Barry Lynn isn't "some Reverend" but is the head of "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" and has spoken at the university several times and is an appropriate witness.


 * There is a difference between balance and neutrality. My characterization of Savage's "ass-covering" was his limp lip-service to one aspect of educational quality (citing some competition wins) although the tone of the rest of his article was implicitly condoning contemptuous of the ability of a low-reputation school to secure prestigious appointments. ("Conservative credentials rose, while prior experience in civil rights law and the average ranking of the law school attended by the applicant dropped.") True neutrality regarding coverage of hiring pattern would have involved, as I mentioned above, looking at the number of positions open over the period, what percentage went to Regent alums, and how that deviated or didn't from previous hiring patterns -- not just balancing the characterization of the school as "low ranking", "bar exam failing", "lacking experience" with an assertion that their teams won some competitions. Madcoverboy 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that my mind must have strayed when writing this. I meant to say "contemptuous", not "condoning." Obviously this changes the meaning of my argument as well as Therefore's reply.Madcoverboy 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You state the point about Bush is a "strawman" argument. OK, could you please defend that statement? It is not self-evident that this is a strawman argument. My purpose wasn't to overstate your position nor to mislead. Instead, I am arguing by example. Let us take your MIT example. The MIT controversies involved "systematic bias", suppression of "freedom of speech", "research misconduct", "contributing to the declining economy", "antitrust suits", "Vietnam War", etc. These controversies all involved direct actions by MIT. Are you implying that Regent directed Ms. Goodling to ask candidates for Justice Department positions who they voted for in the last election?


 * Why doesn't the MIT article have a section about how Ahmed Chalabi was complicit in getting the United States into the Iraq war? Now, that's an elephant. Why only a mention in the alumni list? Obviously, I can generate tens of these MIT examples. Go ahead and call them strawmen but there is a good reason why they aren't mentioned in the main MIT article: MIT had nothing to do with these actions.


 * I am not implying Regent had any agency with which to directly affect the dismissals nor was otherwise directly involved in the scandal, but you can't deny that Regent received considerable coverage and attention as a result of the controversy. If we're going to use Chalabi/MIT as an example, if MIT made a habit of promoting its success of placing alumni into positions of power (which it does), one of these alumni became involved in a political scandal (which has happened), and media coverage and Congressional testimony attempted to link the alumnus' MIT background with the scandal (which HAS NOT happened to my knowledge), then it would by all means warrant inclusion in the article. The Chalabi strawman fails because I am not aware of any reliable sources to verify a claims that an MIT education contributed to Chalabi's actions, whereas as I mentioned before, there are numerous sources attempting to tie Goodling's actions to her background. But, by all means share other MIT-related controversies since I would like the article to be as comprehensive as possible. Madcoverboy 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You state without the Goodling affair, the Globe article would not exist. That is your strongest argument. However, this article is a continuation of the July 2006 Savage article . Again, the focus is on the Civil Rights division.


 * Lastly, I'd like to say that my intent isn't "implicit revisionism" nor "willful neglect" nor to mislead (ala "strawman"). Although these assertions may be considered fine rhetoric, I think they risk crossing the line into incivility. But ne'er fear, I have a thick skin but others may be intimidated.


 * I by no means intended to accuse either Therefore or AnmaFinotera of revisionism, neglect, etc. I've always been of the opinion that every wikipedian bears responsibility for ensuring the NPOV, verifiability, and general quality of every article they come across - the ability to edit anything means we should always be vigilant otherwise we're all complicit in disseminating false or POV information. Thus, I did not want WP to be accused of revisionism, neglect, etc. Madcoverboy 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Therefore already said about all I could think of to this issue as well. I did, however, modify the article slightly to add Lynn being from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to see if it further clarifies why his quote is of importance. AnmaFinotera 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll let each of us respond one more time in attempt to reach consensus for including Monica Goodling in the section on Bush administration hires before I put in a WP:RFC to get other editors' input. Madcoverboy 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) You have made a series of cogent points. It is not my place to deny or confirm whether Goodling is an example of a "less qualified candidate" -- that is a matter for the sources. And none of the sources of the article nor the sources you provided (there is much overlap) makes that assertion. True Regent has historically had poor bar passage rates (now up to 67%) but Goodling passed on the first try. True these articles point out that Goodling came from Regent and that Regent is considered to be a lesser school than traditionally used to fill Civil Rights positions. But there is no statement that she is in fact one of these lesser people.

As for your "strawman" argument -- rarely is Chalabi mentioned without reporting that he is MIT (he enrolled at 16 is apparently a notable point) and University of Chicago trained. Slate, McClatchy, USA Today, etc. Should the article on the Chicago School of Economics be laden with sections about economists who through the philosophical bent of the school have been controversial?

Regent University is notable because of its association with Pat Robertson -- a much more notable person than Goodling. I believe that fact discounts your assertion that Goodling put RU on the map. "[T]he alumni's relations with his/her alma mater to be questioned not only in the media but during sworn Congressional testimony" was used in the context of imputing to Goodling the inadequacies of the school: Did she ask candidates their religious beliefs? (No) Was she aware that Regent's bar passage rate was so low? All of this is (appropriately) covered in the Goodling article which is linked here.

I agree that the tone of the Globe article was "condoning the ability of a low-reputation school to secure prestigious appointments." That is the point of this section but is unrelated to Goodling. If you read the previous Savage article I cited above, you will see that Savage has done extensive research for coming to these conclusions.
 * Please see above as I inadvertently used the word "condoning" instead of "contemptuous of" which clearly affects the meaning of the argument and your response.Madcoverboy 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guessed as much. &#8756; Therefore | talk 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If Regency had no agency (which naturally you weren't implying) then why cite the MIT article as evidence that it is appropriate to include controversies such as this in Wikipedia?

Although these most current arguments do carry much weight, I would welcome an RFC and would abide by the consensus. Fundamentally, I still believe that this is guilt by association about a matter that had absolutely nothing to do with the actions of Regent University. If we open the article to a discussion of Goodling, then it will need to be expanded extensively to provide balance from (for one example) the National Review that considers the association invalid. &#8756; Therefore | talk 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that you're arguing against any inclusion of Goodling in the body, even if it was appropriately NPOV. Obviously I'm not going to fight tooth and nail over this and would abide by a post-RFC consensus as well. I'm going to attempt to summarize each of our arguments for the purposes of starting a RFC thread, feel free to edit it.
 * Should a university alumnus's involvement in a national political scandal be mentioned in the body of the University's article (e.g., a section on controversies or reputation)?
 * User:Madcoverboy contends that the alum's involvement in the controversy attracted increased scrutiny (as measured by media coverage) towards the University and warrants mention in the article body under an existing section on controversies.
 * User:Therefore and User:AnmaFinotera contend that including the alumnus and his/her role in the scandal in the article body is guilt by association and has nothing to do with the actions of the University. They have no problem with the mention of this alumnus in the notable alumni section but not to be used as a reflection of the institute's reputation.
 * I look forward to resolving this. Madcoverboy 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've yet to address your concerns about "looking at the number of positions open over the period, what percentage went to Regent alums, and how that deviated or didn't from previous hiring patterns". I'm unsure what you are driving at. If you have a reliable source that makes the contention that Savage didn't adequately support his conclusions, then it is most welcome. I can't debate whether Savage was correct -- as you well know, truth isn't the objective of Wikipedia but verification is. &#8756; Therefore | talk 22:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that truth should be the objective of reporters -- and Savage engaged in a limited attempt to prove his claims. He could have made a more air-tight case by employing the analysis I mentioned, which would have been neutral. I don't have this kind of data, nor would it likely be appropriate to include per WP:OR.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)