Talk:Tyndale University/Archive 1

Archive 1

ADVERTISMENT

DOES EVERYONE AGREE?? IS THIS PAGE NEEDING A "MAKEOVER"? I Think SO! Bacl-presby (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to adjust the article so that it has a more neutral tone. How does it look now? Timjob (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion

It might be of interest that a short bio on retired Tyndale Seminary Professor Mariano di Gangi has just been tagged with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano di Gangi... Any input?? Bacl-presby 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good news, the article on Dr. Di Gangi has been kept! Bacl-presby 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Student Life section

Boy oh boy does this need a makeover. Full of POV language, and parts of it read as if it was lifted from somewhere like a pamphlet.. I am going to do a small copy edit, but really this thing needs real work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New Edit

I've done a complete rewrite of this article after consulting other Canadian Seminary pages (most of which need a lot of attention!). Claims are now referenced and each of the standard sections are developed. "Novaseminary" still thinks this sounds like advertisement, but I've tried to follow standards set to date and raise the bar a little! I'm happy to hear advice on improving this and all other Canadian seminary pages.Neufast (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The following was pasted from my user talk page, but seems more appropriate here:

Dear Novaseminary,

I see that you have flagged my Tyndale University College and Seminary edits as "advertisement." I've carefully checked other Canadian seminary websites am very much in the ballpark in all categories. I'm hoping to raise the bar a little; some of the better ones are Knox College (Toronto) and University of Trinity College, Toronto.

I'm assuming the following are important for all of our institutions in a encyclopedia article (and they are found in the other Canadian seminary Wiki articles):

a) mission statement

b) history

c) degrees and programs

d) centres of excellence

e) facilities

f) library

g) student life

h) alumni

Important are 3rd party reflections. Note that my evaluations of Tyndale's history is referenced by the historical standard by Stackhouse (a professor at a "rival seminary," if you will (Regent).

All facts are well documented and referenced (Ontario government, ATS, etc.).

I'm not unfamiliar with writing encyclopedia articles (and a wikipedia "minor Barnstar" recipient--I know, that's not much), and so far I am not convinced by your editorial judgment. However, I know good editors are needed for any work, so I'm happy to hear specific feedback.

Neufast (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Neufast, I don't doubt the veracity of your edits. And you have done some good work here. One thing I would note in general is that in the last week you have made, literally, hundreds of edits to this article. This makes it nearly impossible to follow any particular things you have done and makes it difficult to watch the page. Every jot and tittle need not be saved as its own edit. In addition, you generally have not left edit summaries for edits to this article. This makes it even more difficult and is encouraged per WP:ES. As for the text of this article in particular, my problem is not with the sections or the facts or the sourcing. My problem is with the ad-like, flowery quality of the writing. At times the article sounds like a brochure for the school. See WP:BOOSTER. Examples from the lead alone:

• "Christian institution of higher education standing in the Protestant Evangelical tradition" How about "Evangelical Christian institution of higher education"?
• "Situated in what has been called the world's most multi-cultural cities" In addition to the peacock language, this multi-cultural city language is borderline OR. How about just "Toronto" instead?
• "Tyndale offers a variety of degree programs in a wide range of disciplines and fully accredited programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels." This is filled with fluff and peacock terms.
• " Its mission statement affirms that Tyndale..." How about "Its stated mission is..."? How can a statement affirm itself?

It is not what you are saying, but how you are saying it. In addition to WP:BOOSTER, you might want to take a look at WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. Happy editing!! Novaseminary (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

good call Nova, I agree. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for some of your feedback. I've taken most of it to heart.

• The first suggestion above is problematic; leading with "Evangelical Christian" puts the emphasis on the wrong syllable as it were, and the ordering misrepresents the institution's identity.
• I've taken out the multi-cultural piece--although anyone involved in ATS conversations knows that this what Tyndale is recognized for across North America. Not everyone is doing contextual theology and this reality is important for the curriculum. What's your suggestion?
• Next suggestions I have incorporated. Thanks.

I'd be happy for further editorial suggestions.Neufast (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think 'Toronto' is fine. Check out, say Algoma University which is located on the site of a former Indian residential school. This is noted. Nowhere in the article does it say something about part of the mission of AU (to educate Aboriginal people) and how the site makes AU uniquely situated to accomplish this mission. (I use this as an example as I work there, so I follow the page). Anything beyond that sounds like puffery, check that, is pufffery, Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; good example. With respect to the rest of the Tyndale article: I've double checked all of the Univ of Toronto seminaries (Wycliffe, Knox, St. Mike's, Trinity, etc.) and would say that the remainder of this Tyndale article compares very well. I'm a little concerned that an "evangelical" or privately funded college/seminary might held to different standards with regard to boosterism (compare Wycliffe) or flowery language (compare Trinity) than the others. Let me know what specific items you think need to be changed for the improvement of the article and the removal of the "advertisement" /POV warning, and let's hold everyone to the same standards.Neufast (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestions above were not hard and fast sugestions about actual text, just examples to illustrate the problem. I don't have strong feelings about any of the particular language I suggested. Rather than revert/wholesale change your work, I figured highlighting the problem, pointing you to resources, and leaving it to you, for now, to cleanup your edits as best as you can would be the best way to avoid stepping on toes. I would note that compring the article to other articles (unless those articles have GA status) is probably not the best way to go. Just because one article does not live up to WP standards does not mean this article should fail those standards. As for the allegation of certain types of seminaries being held to higher standards, I would just note that I try to make any article I work on with any degree of substantialness move toward the highest of WP standards. (I haven't looked at any of the articles you mentioned, I don't think, since it isn't relevant.) You might note that I have created several articles about seminaries, evangelical and otherwise, and tried to keep them neutral (which was fairly easy to do since I haven't been directly connected to any of them -- see WP:COI, too). If you think other articles don't live up to WP standards, ignore them, work on them, or tag them; don't allow articles you are invloved in editing to ebcome puff pieces instead. Novaseminary (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I note that it appears that Neufast may have a significant COI with respect to this article, as I suspected (per my last comment). I have noted this on Neufast's talk page with this note. Novaseminary (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Novaseminary: Certainly I have had no intention of covering up my connection to the institution (as talk above indicate). The article in its previous incarnation was horrible (see talk for 2009 and earlier). The current version informs accurately re: mission statement; history of the institution; academic programs offered; facilities, etc. (you almost need to be an insider to get hold of that information). But let me ask again: why not compare with the best seminary articles on the Canadian scene, e.g., University of Trinity College, Knox College, University of Toronto, University of St. Michael's College and Wycliffe College? Peer review is important! I'm also a Fellow at Princeton Seminary; look at their Seminary page and compare ["PTS is one of the world's leading institutions for graduate theological education;" "The seminary was made famous during ..." etc.], and my Tyndale text is well within limits, seeking to communicate what is unique in an accurate way with claims that are made by those external to the institution. In my case those sources are Stackhouse, Macleans, Brackney, Province of Ontario, etc -- all of whom have no connection to the institution. I was careful in this regard, and certainly not calling for it to be locked down. Again, let me know where you find specific POV issues that you think need to be changed for the improvement of the article--but I ask you to be fair. I'd like to hear from others as well. Neufast (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a crack at removing or reworking the brochure-like language. I would suggest that Neufast refrain from making anything other than the non-controversial, minimal edits as contemplated in WP:COI, or discuss them on this talk page first. And again, we don't compare WP articles to each other, we compare them against WP guidelines and policies. Feel free to edit those other school's articles to bring them up to where they should be; they could use the attention, I am sure. Novaseminary (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Novaseminary --Thanks for your patience. Some thinning out is fine; thanks. But if I might say, the edit is quite brutal by most standards. Delete name of founder? Delete mention of facilities, library, or student life? Delete reference to its transdenominational identity? Delete mention of Chinese specific programing (diff than diploma or centre)? Again, excuse me for my limited Wiki editing, but this is strangely extreme for any encyclopedia article. Were these items controversial? COI is one thing; caring about a topic to do it well is another. Are you open to discussion? Please, direct me to your best practice sites.Neufast (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The edits were substantial, but far less harsh than a reversion back to that last non-COI edit. The facilities, library, and student life sections were entirely unsourced and read like an admissions brochure. Any info that was cut that should not have been can be sourced and added back by another editor, though probably shouldn't be added back by you per WP:COI. (If you want to make specific suggestions for text to add--with sources-- you may want to follow WP:SCOIC.) As for best practices, in addition to WP:BOOSTER, see WP:UNIGUIDE,WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS,WP:UNDUE, WP:PEACOCK, WP:AVOID, WP:WEASEL, and WP:PROMOTION, among others. Novaseminary (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is now vastly improved. The recent COI edits made the article far too long and complicated with far too much detailed and unecessary information. It also read very much like a promotional brochure instead of an encyclopedia article. Articles will often say more by saying less and this is a good example. Afterwriting (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, this is much better. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to recruit students, and this read like a recruitment brochure. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree we're getting to a better template. But for clarification: Dbrodbeck, you pointed me to your Algoma University--you have "Buildings and Facilities" as well as "Student Life categories". Your source is your Academic Calendar. This is fine (I think this information should be there). I realize you helped to edit this, and I think that is done with care. Yet I'm barred by consensus from adding these same categories (check my text... quite comparable in tone; I didn't add the Calendar as reference because in-house). So, on this I would like a convincing response. A further request: let's together identify some best practice seminary sites, i.e., North American accredited seminary Wikipedia pages that are outstanding and can serve as a model for the rest. Novaseminary, what does your institutional site look like? In my field of Systematic Theology there are outstanding sites (locked down) for all to learn from (Karl Barth / Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both the German and English Wikipedia versions). Are there seminary sites of similar quality? The Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada gives the list of candidates (and I've looked at a few). I've listed some of my best site suggestions. What are yours? Neufast (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As has been already pointed out, articles are principally edited according to policies and style guidelines. Comparisons with other articles is a very secondary consideration. Therefore I think you need to clarify more precisely why you think this is important. Afterwriting (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting hit the nail on the head. You need to be more specific if you want to advance things, otherwise I suspect that I won't have anything else to add. Anyway, the sections you mention are not inherently bad and, if done per WP:UNDUE and with sources, would be fine additions. Those sources may be in-house since they wouldn't be the basis for establishing notability, so long as they are not questionable. As for an article to point to, I don't have an "insitutional site" as I am not affiliated with any seminary (my first new article was about a seminary and the subject interests me, hence my username). I'm sure you didn't mean to imply otherwise, but please keep in mind that nobody owns any article. Novaseminary (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the key is neutral language and citable sources. The only reason I mentioned the Algoma University article is that I both edit the page and work there. I am not saying this article should be like that one, but I think those of us that edit that page, often students and people like me (faculty) have been pretty careful with respect to neutrality and such. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This time I think Dbrodbeck hit the nail on the head. You can edit with a COI (especially when it is an article about an instution with which you are affiliated rather than an article about you individually), but your edits should be extra cautious per WP:COI. It truly is all about "neutral language and citable sources." Novaseminary (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been a profitable discussion. Before wrapping it up, let me answer Afterwriting: Why do I think it is important to identify outstanding sites? Let me provide some analogies: To teach a child to play hockey you must explain the rules. But if you want them to play well, you also you bring that child to Ottawa to watch Sidney Crosby play this weekend (which is what we will do!). To teach someone German, you need to explain the grammar rules, but then display creative usage by competent speakers and writers (remember: grammar rules never precede a living language, but always follow/try to capture it). You teach a theology student to write well by reviewing Turabian/Chicago citation method, how to make argument, etc., but then you also have them read short essays by J. Moltmann or M. Volf, to see a brilliant mind play the game. In ethics rules are good, but more than anything, you need someone you admire, someone you want to emulate. Writing a good encyclopedia article is no different. Rules are based on good practice displayed and tested somewhere at sometime. So that's an explanation (hopefully convincing) why I (still) think it is wise to point to other seminary sites that are exceptional and display everything brilliantly what can be done with the rules of the game.

Am I still allowed to do a minor re-edit in light of the above conversation? And if anyone has a site they like, let me know (a slow learner). Neufast (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You are still allowed to edit, but please read at least this part of Wikipedia:Coi#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest. For examples of good university articles, see the examples given in the examples section of WP:UNIGUIDE. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Moved

In January 2020, consent was granted by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities for Tyndale to use the name "university" its title. This article was moved from Tyndale University College and Seminary to Tyndale University to reflect this change in name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndySmith-ca (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The consent granted by the Ministry of ... Colleges and Universities for use of the name Tyndale University lasts for ten years. The article disingenuously says that the institution "currently has legislation in Parliament" to allow it to grant non-theological doctoral degrees. Such changes would be dealt with not by Parliament (in Ottawa) but rather by the Ontario Legislature in Toronto. The same legislation that permitted the change of name to Tyndale University also allowed the scandalously unfit Canada Christian College to change its name to Canada University. This was done to great outrage before the accrediting body finished vetting it. —Torontonian1 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)