Talk:Southern Baptist Theological Seminary/Archive 1

This article needs work
This article is sorely lacking in thoroughness. The section on "Conservative Resurgence" doesn't even discuss the actual event which took place in the early 1990s. It simply makes a reference to the aftermath settlement without introducing the context. In addition, the history of the school is nowhere to be found. I think this article needs a complete overhaul through careful research and good sources.

growing the stub
Yes, I agree this article needs lots of work. I'm going to try to update it a bit. Here are some things that would be nice to have:
 * a list the former presidents
 * a short history
 * schools within the seminary
 * famous alumni
 * the abstract of principles
 * the recent changes in doctrine and faculty
 * Boyce Bible College
 * Famous Faculty

It really should have some mention in the begining of its afiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention.

I agree that the information below the heading "Conservative Resurgence" is not about the conservative resurgence overall but rather, one of many changes as a result of it and the information would more accurately be described as "conflict over the Carver School of Social Work". As such, I am going to change it to that. In the future, it could be part of a larger section about the changes the new trustees and President Mohler have made since the conservative resurgence.

Regarding the title of the article, it is correct according to the wikipedia naming convention: "The definite article should not be used for universities, even if the official name of the university uses the definite article, as indicated on the website links below. Thus, the most-common-name rule supersedes the official name." Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) (section 3.1)

--Victoria h 03:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. All of the above information was added in January and February, 2010, describing succinctly the theological and structural changes in the institution across 150 years, information that any reputable encyclopedia would have included -- and then a Wikipedia editor REMOVED almost all of it. The resulting article is as dull and lifeless as a phone book, and MISSES THE CENTRAL ETHOS of the institution. Given this arbitrary sanitizing by persons who haven't a clue about the subject, Wikipedia is a waste of an editor's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.238.214 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The topics covered by the text that was recently added (and removed) may be appropriate, but the actual text used was not neutral, non-encyclopedic in tone, and unsourced. An encyclopedia article is not a piece of artwork that would caputure the "central ethos of the institution." The article is dry, and can certainly be improved, but the "sanitizing" was not arbitrary. Editors would not waste their time if they followed WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and the other WP guidelines. Novaseminary (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But you have deleted most of the DISTINCTIVE qualities of the institution, those that make it different from 200 other seminaries. It had 125 years of distinguished history prior to its capture by a radically different group of owners. Will all that history now be lost to Wikipedia readers because an editor decided (from complete ignorance of the school and its cultural context) that is was "non-encyclopedic" in tone?   I have read hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that were worthless pieces of self-promotion -- particularly those articles about pop musicians and soap opera stars and petty politicians -- but somehow THEY passed the "non-encyclopedic" test.  Why would you strip this article of all its relevant historical facts and leave those articles untouched?  It's baffling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.253.17 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you the same person as the editor that made the above comments yesterday from a different IP address? If so (either way, really), you should consider creating an account. And if you are the same editor that edited from this IP address over at National Council of Churches‎ recently, please keep in mind the guidance on conflicts of interest I gave over there just in case it applies here -- I have no idea whether it does. Anyway, your characterization regarding the seminary's "capture by a radically different group of owners" belies a POV problem. You might very well be right (again, I have no idea), but remember Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability and encyclopedic language and tone. And you are certainly correct that many, many articles do not meet Wikipedia standards. But just because other articles have problems, doesn't make it ok that this one does. Please do include all information that is relevant and appropriate -- keeping in mind WP:Undue-- but do it in an encyclopedic, neutral tone and with cited, reliable sources. You can read WP:CS to learn how to cite, and personally, I prefer to use Template:Cite. You should also familiarize yourself with the other policies I have linked to here and above. Once you have done that and fleshed out this article, you can move on to fixing all of the articles about pop and soap opera stars! Oh, and please avoid the personal attacks (referrnig to an editor as ignorant never goes over well) and remember to assume good faith. Thanks! Novaseminary (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

possible bias in point of view
The sentence below sounds an awful lot like self-congratulatory hyperbole one might find in a brochure, and doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's standard of neutral point of view. If this is how SBTS describes itself in promotional literature, it should be so credited. If it is the article author's opinion, then it seems too biased toward SBTS

"Southern Seminary looks to the future with great expectation, not forgetting the legacy of its storied past or its commitment to the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

````MDonfield


 * I completely removed this statement, as none of it is encyclopedic in nature. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni
Please do not list various alumni as "notable" unless they have encyclopedic notability. Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, here's an idea: How about expanding content that actually increases reader knowledge about the seminary? Adding non-notable individuals to a list does nothing to educate anyone. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WTC?
The phrase "According to Wikipedia" sounds fine in a newspaper, but in an article on Wikipedia, it sounds out of place at best.--Supernerd 10 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and fixed. Thanks for the catch. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Photograph
I think the page could use a photograph, either of the official logo or of the front of Norton Hall (or of something similar). Maybe someone who understands wikipedia better than I do could make the change. Thanks :-)

Relevance?
I do not see the relevance of this:

"Other seminaries adhering to this biblical counseling model include Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Master's Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary among others."

There are many other institutions that adhere to this biblical counseling method. Why choose these three? And what if those three change their views? A good discussion of relevance is here. Please read and comment.

It seems to me that the inclusion of the sentence has a motive, whether for good or bad, of linking this seminary with these others. That is beyond the scope of the article, especially without references linking these together.

I will remove in a few weeks without compelling arguments for relevance. Thanks! --Rereward (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with removal. Seems like a random list at best. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will remove. --Rereward (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051018075432/http://www.sacscoc.org:80/dtails.asp?instid=65520 to http://www.sacscoc.org/dtails.asp?instid=65520

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100306172821/http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsServices/OWHE/cora_ann_davis.htm to http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsServices/OWHE/cora_ann_davis.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203100331/http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/bruce-ware/ to http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/bruce-ware/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203143512/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29434 to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29434

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)