Talk:William Tyndale College

Using Primary Sources
Please review our policies on verfiability, citing your sources and original research. Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources, such as court documents, especially when the are the only sources for information. When using primary sources, the editor is often forced to resort to original research - that is write their own opinion of what's being shown by the source; since original research is also against policy, its one of the main reasons we insist on secondary sources for references.

I've removed the primary sources and the text based on it, a lot of which was original research. I've re-written the section based on the one secondary source given. If you'd like to re-add information about the incident, please be sure you are following Wikipedia policies. Since these incidents affect living people, Wikipedia is very firm about immediately removing any content that goes against policy. Shell babelfish 00:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to Shell Kinney's version and protected it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research or advocacy and prior to my intervention the article was far from a neutral presentation of the salient facts regarding William Tyndale College. I suggest that any interested editors make suggestions here on the discussion page for any changes that might improve the article further. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion page practices
I have removed a number of unsigned comments from this discussion page and would like to request that all editors observe some of our basic rules of wikiquette as the discussion continues:


 * 1) Due to the controversial nature of this matter, I suggest that participants in the discussion who wish to be taken seriously should create an account to allow others to contact them and follow the thread of the discussion.
 * 2) Sign anything you add to this page by appending ~ to your post.
 * 3) Recognize that Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for advocacy regarding the McHann matter and that the article on the college should not give undue weight to this matter or particular aspects of it.
 * 4) Recognize that to the extent we choose to include information regarding the McHann matter in the article, our role is to present all sides of the story and permit the reader to draw their own conclusions.
 * 5) Any editors who were involved in or affected by the McHann matter are asked to review and follow our guidelines at Editing_with_a_conflict_of_interest.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)