Talk:B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

I'm disputing the NPOV of this article for the following reasons:

  • It also cooperates with other Great Commission Christians who are on the cutting edge of ministry.
    • Great commission Christians The implication is that those Christian with whom the BHCTI doesn't cooperate are not Great Commission Christians (Like those yokels over there at Southwestern Baptist Theological 'Cemetery'. (Also the wording is sloppy "IT also cooperates with OTHER Great Commission Christians--An Institute isn't a Christian.)
    • on the cutting edge of ministry. Clearly this is an opinion and one heavily weighted in favor of BHCTI.
  • Carroll emphasized two dimensions of theological education as equally important: academic excellence and practical application.
    • No support for the claim "Carroll emphasized two dimensions of theological education as equally important. Indeed, I posted a quotation of his deathbed charge to his successor on the B. H. Carroll page. One could argue that avoiding heresey was more practical application. (To this end the Conservatives of the SBC seemed to have used that deathbed charge as a blueprint from wresting the convention out of the hands of the "modern devotees of higher criticism [read heretics]." (See how nasty NPOV can get?)
  • "B. H. Carroll Theological Institute differs from other theological institutions in the scope of its philosophy of education, its approach to resources, and its relationship with churches and other educational institutions. Carroll Institute does not accept certain implicit but persistent assumptions about ministerial training. Theological education does not have to be highly competitive. By enlarging incentives and opportunities for learning, the entire student base is expanded to such a degree that other institutions will benefit as well.

I'd like to see it cleaned up, so that it can properly be expanded.SonPraises 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added also the factual accuracy since this institute seems to have no accreditation or provids any idependnet sources to verify it claims.

DRCarroll 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation[edit]

It is not a canidate for Southern Assocaitation accredaition nor to we have proof it meets the requirements. It needs to be left off. A group "hoping" for something doesn't need to be included in the article, especially when it comes to academics. The template stays as their own page admits they can't want degrees in texas, their home state. MOS:BIO excludes academic titles.Arbusto 14:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I disagree with you entirely regarding academic titles and what I think is a complete and utter misinterpretation of MOS:BIO requiring an absolute ban on the use of academic titles in any circumstance (see Condoleezza Rice, where she is referenced as "Dr. Rice" a half-dozen times, for the most notable counterexample of thousands on Wikipedia). However, I now realize that it is far more important to focus on presenting a genuinely neutral view of the school than to fight to retain two letters and a period. 2) Any plan involves a sequence of steps. It's ludicrous to not mention a final, stated goal, simply because proof that all prerequisites have been completed to guarantee success has not been provided. If I announced plans to swim across the English Channel, I could state that before I jumped in the water at Dover; after all I can't state with certainty that I will actually do it until I come ashore at Calais. The school is a new school. It does not yet grant degrees. It is pursuing state certification, which will allow it to grant degrees and is a prerequisite for regional accreditation. Once it has the state certification, it plans to seek regional accreditation. Why are you opposed to providing useful information that explains that it seems to be following the steps any new school must follow, without trying to make a WP:POINT using the template that it is not accredited? Do you have any evidence that the school is a diploma mill or that it is trying to induce students to attend with false promises of degree-granting authority or accreditation? Alansohn 15:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The template is standard for unaccredited institutions because degrees, credentials may not be legal in some areas like texas.[1] Why are you insisting that we make an exception?
Regarding MOS:BIO: Read the talk, I wanted to leave the titles in. I was out voted. This is policy. You'll notice on the talk I gave example of it beings used, and I was told to remove them. (You'll note that discussion and decision was months back.) Arbusto 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given up on the "Dr." title, but I could show you thousands that violate this "rule," and a plain reading of MOS:BIO simply does not say what you're saying it has been interpreted to mean. I have edited the article, leaving in my broader explanation of the school's pursuit of certification and accreditation. The unaccredited template is under the explanation. As the article stands, I would find it hard to believe that any individual reading the article would not get the point that the school is unaccredited or the implications thereof. Alansohn 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding BIO:MOS, the last decision discussed on the talk and approved with consensus to insert it the way it is (I opposed at the time) is clear.[2] The author of the proposal said it was to "eliminate the use of academic titles with names, and I hope put to bed internecine squabbling about whether a person "deserves" a given title or not."
I'll compromise on leaving the accreditation claim in, but it needs to be noted that are not a canidate for accreditation. Arbusto 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of "hope" to have accreditation must be taken out, as I have noticed a serious POV pushing pattern on unaccredited schools.[3] Arbusto 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that they are not a candidate was removed as unverifiable. They say they are a candidate. CHEA does not claim to keep track of candidates, and explicitly says that there are accrediting organizations that have accredited schools not listed in CHEA's database. "Participation in the CHEA database is voluntary. Some recognized accrediting organizations have chosen not to be included." CHEA's database search page. To show them to not be a candidate, an affirmative statement that they are not a candidate needs to be found in a reliable source. GRBerry 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a independent source that shows that meet the basic standards for accreditation it should be listed. Until then we know it does not have accreditation and it is not a canidate. We do this for all unaccredited places. Arbusto 08:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we do not know that it is a candidate. I've explained above the logic why your prior basis for thinking this was not verifiable. As this claim is both 1) challenged and 2) unverified, it should be removed from the article until such time as you can produce verification. Now, it is possible that I am wrong about using CHEA as a basis - but their home page is absolutely not a source for this statement, and that is all you have offered so far. CHEA explicitly states that their database does not include accredited schools from all recognized accrediting agencies, and is absolutely silent (so far as I can see) about whether candidates are in their database. If you want to try using CHEA, please use baby steps here on the talk page, and have your citation be to an exact location at CHEA, not just their home page. I have yet to find anything at CHEA that claims to keep track of candidates from any agency, much less the all that are needed to use them to verify your claim. GRBerry 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? So you believe it is seeking accreditation? Provide a source. Who are they applying to and when? CHEA lists canidates and this isn't listed. Arbusto 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that it is seeking certification. Their website claims that they are, some of the press coverage has said that they are. You have said multiple times that CHEA list candidates. I asked in the immediately prior step that you spell this out in baby steps. I have looked multiple times at the CHEA site, and find no claim by CHEA that CHEA lists candidates. Why do you believe they do. I will continue to remove the claim if you site it to the CHEA home page. If you follow the link I provided two edits ago, and hit I agree on the license agreement, the italicized paragraph explicitly states that there are CHEA recognized accreditors that do not list in CHEA's database. So you can't even source a claim that a school is not accredited to CHEA. I have found nowhere on CHEA's site a claim by CHEA that they list candidates. If you google for the word "candidate", limiting to www.chea.org, there are only twelve results that include the word candidate. [4] To my eyes none of them are a claim that CHEA tries to keep track of candidates. I believe that I have more than proven that CHEA does not do what you believe it does. If you can prove me wrong, show some evidence, don't insert a bare link to CHEA's home page. GRBerry 01:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is certification and accreditation the same? Do you have a source from ANY accreditor that it is a canidate? Being a canidate is a long process (miniumu 5 years) and you must meet basic standards. We have no proof of this. All you have is some website claiming it wants accreditation. That doesn't cut it for a encycolpedia. Arbusto 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that they were the same? Please don't use strawman arguments. Here is the actual quote from the institute's website. "B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is actively seeking certification in Texas through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) and accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the Association of Theological Schools (ATS), and the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). Certification by the state of Texas is one of the prerequisites to apply for accreditation with the associations. Certification is at least a two-year process. If concluded satisfactorily, we will be allowed to offer degrees. We intend to apply for accreditation with SACS immediately upon being certified." [Emphasis added.] I didn't find during the most recent AFD any discussion at the THECB's site about candidacy for anyone. (Doesn't mean it isn't there, but it certainly isn't easy to find.) Both of the 2006 articles used as a source in the article further include this quote "working to secure accreditation, which is expected from four accrediting agencies, Corely said."
I know that some people hold the opinion that none of the sources are independent. If laughter could be communicated effectively and politely in internet text, laughter would be the appropriate response to that opinion. SkerHawx's and my conversation therein was cut off when the AFD closed, but all he really convinced me of was that the writers of the articles were probably the best possible news reporters that we could find on Baptists in Texas, not that there was a lack of independence with this Institute. (Yes, news reporters are different than encyclopedia editors. But Wikipedia has chosen to very much treat news reporters as excellent judges of notability (in the most important standard of WP:N) and as normally reliable sources (in WP:RS).) (If, as he claimed, it was all a PR strategy, is the biggest, most expansive article the one in the North Carolina paper where the Institute has no immediate plans for operating? That doesn't pass the sniff test.) We have at least two sources meeting the standards at WP:RS that say they are in the process of achieving accreditation. I see nothing in the programs of study to make me think that they will not eventually get it.
They are clearly not a diploma mill if someone looks at the evidence. For the top two of the three levels of study, they don't even use the word diploma in describing what someone might receive. For none of the three do they use the word degree. (While we can't use blogs as a reliable source, one of there students has a blog which clearly shows that he is aware that they do not currently offer degrees.) Looking at the requirements for the programs of study, there is a full college courseload. They say that the courses are more intensese than typical courses because the terms are shorter, so a potential student should only take half as many courses as they would elsewhere. That is not what a diploma mill would say or do. They have faculty and administation that include former tenured professors and deans at an accredited college. This has every sign of being of a legitimate school that has not yet received accreditation because of the time requirements for completing all the steps in the process. Goodnight. GRBerry 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman argument? Do you even know what that is because it is certainly not. You were unclear about your claim and I asked you a question. Please provide a source that they are "pursing accreditation", and give the name of the accreditor. This will be easy to verify. I believe your lack of knowledge on accreditation means you are conflating accreditation with state certification, and "plans to pursue accreditation" with the "process of accreditation." Arbusto 04:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are not looking at the evidence already provided. There are at least two reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's standards (articulated at WP:RS) that are already included in the article as citations. These reliable sources say that they are working on achieving accreditation. One says that achieving state certification is a prerequisite for being accredited; which makes it part of the process of accreditation. CHEA (in one of the PDFs I read while checking what they said about candidates) describes meeting prerequisites as a part of the process that makes accreditaton worth paying attention to. You have said (below) that once the pre-requisites are met a school is usually given provisional accreditation. Thus working on prerequisites is clearly part of working to achieve accreditation. GRBerry 13:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legally operating?[edit]

Can anyone confirm this place can legally issue degrees in Texas? I ask becausein another article, the head of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board says schools must be accredited in Texas.

"LaSalle University of Louisiana was an institution that did offer degrees for less than college level work required. They basically were a fraudulent or substandard institution. In fact it was closed down by the federal government," David Linkletter of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board said.

Borrer completed the Ph.D. through a distance education program by completing coursework online. For online degree programs there are no hard rules of regulation, except accreditation. In Texas, using an unaccredited degree is against the law.

"As of Sept. 1, 2005 it is a crime, a misdemeanor, to use a fraudulent or sub-standard degree to promote a business to seek employment or ask extra compensation," Linkletter said. [5]

Arbusto 03:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this news? Is this relevant? How many more statements do we need that the school is not yet accredited? Alansohn 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the legality of an institution cannot be confirmed that leads to WP:V issues. As such, articles with WP:V issues that will mislead readers should be removed. Arbusto 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article under attack![edit]

Despite two successive failed AfDs, and despite the fact that the most recent AfD closed with "no consensus, leaning to keep" with a substatntial majority voting to keep, the same crowd of deletionists has started at it again. With the worst of bad faith, notability tags were applied just over 24 hours after the previous attack against the article failed. Despite satisfying every aspect of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CORP, the usual deletionist clique, led by Arbusto is refusing to accept his previous two failures. All Wikipedians with any shred of decency should stand up to this attempt to take a third crack at deleting a prefectly valid article. Alansohn 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is simple: offer compelling proof of notability. The only reason this article exists is because enough people, who just happen to monitor the school watch page that you added this article to and constantly vote keep, influenced the discussion to no consensus-- NOT keep.
Thus, there is no consensus it is notable. Arbusto 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO you even believe the nonsense you write. Despite persistent attacks from deletionists, and despite the vendetta you seem to have against this school, and despite the fact that many of the delete votes are from people who vote to delete anything put before them in an AfD, both of your attempts at deletion failed. While your first attempt was a roughly balanced "no consensus", your second attempt was "no consensus, leaning to keep", with a strong majority of participants indicating that the article should be retained. Those participating and voting to keep seem to be seeing that there is a strong case to be made to keep the article and that your persistent (if not obsessive) attempts at deleting this article just don't hold water. It's time to move on to find other articles that don't pass your arbitrary tests which might be more likely to succumb to your tactics. Alansohn 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus it is notable. Do you have a source that is proof otherwise? Arbusto 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent AFD was closer to a keep result than any alternative, as you have already been corrected on once. I wouldn't read the AFD as a consensus that it is notable, but you certainly don't have any consensus support for the claim that it is not notable. GRBerry 13:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of reasoning is that? If it is proven notable then a notability is not needed. It is not proven notable. Arbusto 08:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edits re certification[edit]

Not again. In trying to malign the school, Arbusto has edited the article in the section about accreditation to read "It's website claims to be seeking certification in Texas..." In his attempt at inserting his own personal bias, Arbustoo seems to be implying that the website is in the process of seeking certification; usually, it's schools that seek such certification. While using weasel words in general is frowned upon in general, in this case it's far more egregious as part of a blatant POV attack on the article. The statement is explicitly sourced as is. If anyone has any information to the contrary, it should be corrected, with an appropriate source provided. Alansohn 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced to its website, and thus is presented that way. If you have a independent source to confirm it then it should be worded differently. Arbusto 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I corrected it to say: "Its website claims that the institute is seeking certification in Texas through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)." [emphasis added on copied text on discussion page] JChap2007 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbusto, I think you fail to understand that you are imposing your own personal biases and point of view into this article. The word "claims" is a classic weasel word, that attempts to undermine the neutral statement regarding its plans. Unfortunately, the majority of your edits have been in blatant violation of WP:POV. If you can't deal with this subject with some measure of neutrality, it may be time to walk away and move on to other battles.
OK, I see you have corrected your comment to clarify you were talking to Arbusto and not to me. Accordingly, I will strike out the remainder of my reply. For future reference, it is better to edit comments you have previously made so that it is clear you have changed them and others' responses don't puzzle third parties. JChap2007 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to your second sentence, read WP:RS. As to the rest of your comment, why don't you try actually discussing which of my edits you think are in "blatant violation" of WP:POV rather than making conclusory statements, or if you cannot do this rationally, maybe you should walk away.JChap2007 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this again (though I will address the word "claims", as well, later): Arbusto, I think you fail to understand that you are imposing your own personal biases and point of view into this article. The word "claims" is a classic weasel word, that attempts to undermine the neutral statement regarding its plans. Unfortunately, the majority of your edits have been in blatant violation of WP:POV. If you can't deal with this subject with some measure of neutrality, it may be time to walk away and move on to other battles. (end of comment to Arbusto/oo). As to the website being a reliable source, WP:RS states "Self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about in articles about the writers/publishers of those sources, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote them, and where the material is: 1) relevant to the self-publisher's notability; 2) not contentious; 3) not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; 4) about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject; The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all." A statement that the school is planning to pursue accreditation is sufficiently neutral to meet this WP:RS standard. There are several other statements in the article that are sourced from the organization's website where the word "claims" has not been inserted. I guess you could rationalize a statement that says the school's website claims that Corley was awarded both a Master of Divinity (M.Div.) and Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary or (a bit more offensively) that the organization claims on its website that it aims to "serve Christ in the diverse and global ministries of His church". The source is explicitly from the website, there is nothing that hides it, and the use of the word "claims" is inherently POV. Alansohn 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would look closely at 3) in your statement. Organizations (and not just this one) often talk about their plans for the future; some of which are more realistic than others. It's not that the organizations are lying per se, but their "plans" are often more aspirational than achievable. That's why it is important to qualify such statements when we don't have anything tangible other than the organization's assertion that such things are "planned." JChap2007 02:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur that the use of a "claim" is a weasel word. "Claim" carries with it the impression that you are making a false statement. Between making stating someting and fact and sneeringly say that those making it are only "claiming" to make it, some middle ground might be found. "According to X" for example. Or by giving an alternate viewpoint, "Though this notion is disputed by Y who said 'Z'."

SonPraises 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as JChap put it. Arbusto 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This bit of controversy I think is a little overblown because some parties are too emotionally involved in their current positions. "The website claims to be seeking" says that it is the website that is trying to receive accreditation, which is just a false statement; that isn't even the claim that is made by the Institute, and nobody accredits websites as a website. The wording should make it clear that it is the Institute that is seeking accreditation, not the website. If need be, the website can be mentioned; though I don't think that is necessary as there are also statements made to the press which could be cited for this sentence. A less inflamatory wording would be something along the lines of "The Institute says that it is seeking..." or "The Institute, on its website and in statements to the press, says that it is seeking..." GRBerry 13:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is overblown. Alansohn's conduct on this talk reflects poorly on him. Arbusto 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SACS[edit]

I think it's useful to mention that Carroll is trying to get accredited by this body. Many religious schools develop complex rationales for not seeking accreditation from this body, whose accreditation brings a certain amount of prestige but that demands standards of academic freedom that are incompatible with how many religious institutions operate. Of course, we should be careful not to imply that they have made much progress, until such progress is reported in a reliable source. BTW, do we know what the other three bodies it is seeking accreditation from are? JChap2007 03:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not seeking accreditation from SACS. If you go to SACS directory to "Search the COC Database for all Member, Candidate, and Applicant Colleges and Universities, includes links to institutional web sites and details of accreditation status" last updated 10/12/06 it is missing. Hence, they "hope" to apply, but there is no record they are a canidate or an applicant.
The SACS hope should not be included as it might give the reader the false impression that it is an applicant or canidate. It is difficult for a school to become an applicant and during the process the school is usually given provisional accreditation.
If anyone has information it has applied to SACS or meets the basic requirements for SACS it should be noted. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
The fact that from the article you understood it as "Carroll is trying to get accredited by this body" when that is not the case is a good reason it shouldn't be included. Arbusto 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Arbustoo here. Any mention would be misleading. JoshuaZ 06:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my main reason for inclusion had to do with where it put them on the ideological spectrum, not how established they were. However, I appreciate your concerns in that regard. Plus, their moderation is discussed adequately in the History section, so I guess I can live without putting the ref to SACS in. They don't even have state certification yet, so SACS accreditation seems pretty remote at this point. JChap2007 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We know what the other accrediting organizations are expected to be also. You can either read the cited portion of their website (reference #8 at this moment), or the quote I retyped above last night. It says exactly where the Institute says they are in the process and what all four accrediting bodies will be. GRBerry 13:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as GRBerry points out on the footnote, "If concluded satisfactorily, we will be allowed to offer degrees. We intend to apply for accreditation". This is really silly to insert an "ifs" and "intentions" of a particular group. Say it wants accreditation and leave it at that. Claiming "that upon receipt of Texas certification, it plans to pursue accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the United States Department of Education" is beyond unneccessary. Arbusto 11:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You reinserted it when three people above don't want it in. I have removed it until you can confirm from SACS the school is in the process. Arbusto 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. You've fought for deletion when majorities disagreed with you, and that never stooped you from further attempts at deletion. The statement that the school plans to seek SACS and other certification is sourced reliably with two individual sources. No matter the weasel words and POV you try to insert, your offensive efforts will not be tolerated. Alansohn 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Three people disagree with its inclusion. SACS has no record of this place. Its an aspiration for them to get recognized by SACS, aspirations are unecyclopedic. 2) I nominate articles and re-nominate them for deletion all the time. Some get deleted, some don't. Currently, this article exists and thus schould conform with other unaccredited school and school articles. Arbusto 10:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take the latest illogic in order: 1) A whopping three people disagree with a clearcut Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing of statements, and we're supposed to respond to that? Google counts 5,080 articles with the phrase "hopes to". A few examples of "hopes to" that appear in other articles: GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri - "GTRE hopes to fit production Tejas aircraft with a multi-axis thrust-vectoring version." CipherSaber - "Reinhold hopes to keep encryption technology accessible to everyone". Long Now Foundation - "The Long Now Foundation hopes to creatively foster responsibility in the framework of the next 10,000 years". American Competitiveness Initiative - "ACI hopes to promote new levels of educational achievement and economic productivity." To meet your latest demands, I will change the word "hopes" to "plans". A search on "plans to" found 168,000 Google hits in Wikipedia article, making it the preferred, more encyclopedic wording. 2) In your most recent failed AfD attack on this article, 24 Wikipedians voted Keep, 14 Delete. I have no idea why this was insufficient to justify a clearcut keep, but the AfD failed, closed with the comment "no consensus, leaning towards keep". What difference does it make that a whopping three people, you and two of your cronies, have decided that a fully-sourced statement with a reference should be removed because you have a majority of one? After a far broader majority decided the article was perfectly fine as is, you have decided to attack it with the torture of a thousand little edits, all aimed at pushing your own personal POV about this school and other school articles that fail your arbitrary standards. I know that in another dazzling blast of hypocrisy from someone who places so much faith in a perceived majority of 3-2, we can expect to see another attempt at an AfD, part of your personal, acrimonious vendetta against schools that you don't like. I will exercise the voice of the far-larger majority and restore the statement about plans to pursue SACS accreditation. Alansohn 13:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does CipherSaber have to do with this article? This place is not in the process of applying to or being a canidate for SACS. It is wrong to associate one group with another group because the former WANTS to be associated with it. Arbusto 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the one that bothers you, I'll remove it. While your original research has determined that "aspirations are unecyclopedic", all I was trying to do is to show that the aspirational phrase "hopes to" appears in 5,080 Wikiepdia articles, as determined by Google, evidence that it is encyclopedic. As to the CipherSaber article that offends your delicate sensibilities, I have struck it out from my earlier comment. I will offer to add some more of these encyclopedic aspirational sources from among the other 5,076 references to the term if they will help. "Plans to", another example of the aspirational phrases that you object to, appears in 168,000 articles. I don't know how the clearly worded phrase "BHCTI said... it plans to pursue accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools" associates BHCTI with SACS. It means to me that BHCTI intends to work towards formal recognition with SACS, and the source that backs that statement up is handily available right next to the sentence in the article, ready for you or any other reader to click on it and verify that it has stated that it does indeed plan to do so. If you have a reliable source to show that BHCTI does NOT plan to pursue such accreditation, feel free to add it. Other than that, your edits have been blatant violations of WP:POV, part of your concerted efforts to delete and undermine the article. Alansohn 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am oppose to including a mention that it "intends to work" for recognition of a specific accreditor when they are NOT a SACS Member, Candidate, and Applicant College/ University, according to SACS.

If you can name any school articles of unaccredited institutions "intending" to become accredited by a specific group then name them. That would be relevant to this discussion. Arbusto 23:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation[edit]

I have changed "plans" to "hopes" to try to reach some consensus. I think Corley can be a reliable source for what he hopes will happen. This should eliminate the need for the ORish "No evidence has been produced..." language JChap2007 17:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll agree with you for the most part and take it a bit further, even though I think that "hope" is a more passive weasel word and "plan" implies a more definitive course of action. This is an article that already indicates on several occasions that the school is unaccredited, along with a boiler plate blurb with a rather menacing message about use of degrees granted by such institutions. There can be no possible confusion by anyone reading the article regarding its status in this regard. In the zeal to try to undermine the article, inserting statements such as "the website plans to seek..." are signs of POV violations. To insert a statement that "No evidence has been produced..." after a neutral fully-supported and documented statement that the school plans/hopes to seek accreditation, is not just WP:OR, it's a violation of WP:POV and WP:POINT. We know that there is a small group of people opposed to this article; it's time that we question whether these edits are NPOV good-faith attempts to improve the article or preliminary skirmishes that are part of efforts to justify the forthcoming AfD, B. H. Carroll Theological Institute - Episode 3: The Revenge of the Wikipedians. Anyone want to start a pool as to when this new AfD will be coming to a theater near you? Alansohn 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was a Keep in the 2nd AfD (and did not participate in the first). I have no way of knowing anyone else's intentions, but have never seen the editor who inserted the language you have such a problem with act in anything but good faith. Question: Do we have a source saying Carroll has a "definitive course of action" to get accreditation? If it does not, "hope" is probably a better description (and not a weasel word) at this point. JChap2007 18:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to leave with "hopes", as indicated, despite my concerns. My primary issue that many of Arbusto's edits are hopelesly tainted by POV are left unaddressed. Alansohn
It planned to receive is much different than "hopes to receive" and "planned to apply for". You said you'd "leave" it alone, but you did not. Your claim was misleading on accreditation. Arbusto 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation status[edit]

So much of this discussion is based on a limited understanding of the processes of certification and accreditation. An institution may not apply for accreditation unless is first certified in the state of Texas. A new institution, like B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, must go about the work of an educational institution and offer classes for a period of two years before it may apply for certification. During the two-year period, the institution may not use degree terminology or imply that it can offer degrees. To do so would be illegal in Texas. At the end of the 2-year period, the institution may make application for a letter of authority to offer degrees. Before such authority is granted, the institution must demonstrate compliance to 21 standards set but the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. In the case of the Carroll Institute, such an application was made on August 1, 2006. On October 17-18, 2006, the Coordinating Board sent a team of educators to perform a site visit and the facilities in Arlington. Only after receiving certification may an institution apply for accreditation from one of the regional accrediting agencies, which, in the case of Texas, is the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). I trust this clarification will be of benefit to your discussion. JSMoore

JSMoore, thank for explanations. I have the same concerns and made the same statement regarding other editors limited understanding of accreditation. I have updated the page accordingly. Arbusto 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This information conforms with what has been described in the article and clarifies BHCTI's current efforts to obtain certification from the THECB. It would be most helpful to obtain independent verifiable information about BHCTI's application for certification with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the details of the THECB's visit to the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute. Alansohn 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, it was improperly worded and implied accreditation was around the corner when that is not the case. The article does not explictly says they cannot offer degrees when that is the case. When I questioned its degrees you wrote: Is this relevant? Clearly, as other people pointed out the wording is poor, and it cannot legally issue degrees. You are incorrect that Moore's statement "conforms with what has been described." Moore's issues as well as JoshZ, JChap, and mine are not addressed with your ignorant edits concerning accreditation. Arbusto 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbusto/oo: That the wording was poor is your malicious handiwork. The edit you refer to was in response to your bad faith attacks on the article under 36 hours after your second AfD failed miserably. The wording we had before your latest vandalism was "The institute currently has no approval or standing with the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or any group recognized by the United States Department of Education. As stated on its website, the institute is seeking certification in Texas through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB).[9] In 2004, BHCTI said, that upon receipt of Texas certification, it plans to pursue accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the United States Department of Education." which describes the process exactly. I know what the process is just as well as you so. You have been so utterly obsessed in trying to show that the school is unaccredited -- there are several separate references to its unaccredited status -- that you refuse to read what the article actually says in your zeal to insert text that puts the school in the worst possible light, in blatant violation of WP:POV. Now that we have a report that the school IS under consideration for THECB certification, you have jumped onto that, and tried to spin it as a negative, after spending weeks trying to "prove" that they were not. So now, with no source available other than someone's post here on this talk page, you now feel that you have new negative information to throw at the article. The problem is that, unlike the description of the school's plans, the statements you made regarding the certification process are not only WP:NOV violations, but are unsourced. As usual, your latest vandalism will be removed, with any redeemable content saved. Alansohn 14:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Texas law governing the process it clear.[6] Arbusto 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am so ignorant about WHAT it's shocking? The article states that the school is seeking certification with the THECB. After it receives certification it plans to pursue accreditation with SACS. You can insert chapter and verse from the THECB's guidelines, and it is useful to have the material reference, but this changes nothing about the article. After spending weeks in abject denial about the school's pursuit of certification (remember your perpetual, nonsensical CHEA.org link?) now certification is somehow to be perceived as a negative? You are still so caught up in your vendetta against this school that you read every bit of information as ammunition for your next AfD. Now that you have reason to accept that the school is actively pursuing certification, now we're going to here the broken record that it's not a candidate for SACS accreditation, over and over and over and over and over again. Did I mention over again? Take a step back and try to deal with the subject in a vaguely neutral fashion without the customary WP:POV violations. Alansohn 04:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its very telling that an anon. IP comes here and says the article is "based on a limited understanding of the processes of certification and accreditation" and you reply "This information conforms with what has been described in the article."
You are completely ignorant on the accreditation process. This has nothing do with POV, but how CHEA and the USDE operate. If you take the time to familiarize yourself with these matters you could end this edit war. There is no need to mention in two years aims to "it plans to pursue accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the United States Department of Education." Cut it down to "it plans to pursue accreditation" it will be less confusing to those who don't know the process.
Also your personal attacks are sickening. Arbusto 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might our anonymous IP editor, be referring to you, by any chance? Again, just point to some item about certification or accreditation I have referenced in the article that is factually incorrect, not just in conflict with the way you feel the school should be characterized. I have already familiarized myself thoroughly with this process. If you feel that I am wrong about any aspect thereof, please point it out (with an appropriate source) and I will make the necessary correction in my thought process and in the article. Cutting it down to "it plans to pursue accreditation" would imply that upon receipt of THECB certification, it will start to think about accreditation. The statement that "it plans to pursue accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the United States Department of Education." accurately reflects the school's plans, based on a set of explicit sources provided. What about providing a specific description of the school's plans so bothers you? Alansohn 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When one reads they "plan" to apply for SACS it presumes they meet the requirements to apply to SACS.[7] Do you have WP:RS to prove the latter? If not, it should be left to a general claim they intend to be accredited.
The anon. IP wasn't referring to me, and your response ("this information conforms") to him clearly shows that. Arbusto 07:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth can I provide a source that "proves" that BHCTI is presuming that they meet each and every qualification that they must meet to be granted SACS accreditation, a statement that even you can't possibly believe is true, or that it is what is intended by the text of the article? The article states "...the institute is seeking certification in Texas through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), a process that can take up to two years, during which time the institution may not use degree terminology or imply that it can offer degrees. In 2004, BHCTI said, that upon receipt of Texas certification, it plans to pursue accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)..." There is absolutely nothing that appears in the article that can possibly be construed to mean that they WILL be granted accreditation from SACS or that they meet all qualifications for accreditation. All its says is that upon receipt of THECB certification that they "plan to pursue" such accreditation. Do you really believe that there is anyone else, other than you, who is confused by this statement? It's bad enough that you're reading your own bizarro world interpretations of this article to push your agenda. Now we have your exegesis of the anonymous IP as "proving" that you're right and I'm wrong. Again, you are so caught up in your biases that you can't see your constant flow of WP:POV violations. It's well past the time for you to walk away from this article and find articles where your bullying tactics might have a greater chance of success. Alansohn 13:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't prove it, which is exactly why it doesn't belong there. Its intends to apply accreditation and leave it as that. You cannot prove it is or will be elible to apply/be a canidate for SACS. Arbusto 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop-dee-doo!! I can't prove your concocted version of what you've misinterpreted, choosing to believe that the school believes it is eligible to apply or be a candidate for SACS accreditation. You got me! Unfortunately, that is something the school isn't claiming, and neither am I. But I can prove, with a reliable source, that the school plans to pursue accreditation with SACS after receiving THECB certification is received. I have a source for it, so it stays, as is. If you can provide a source that contradicts that information, proving that they really don't plan to pursue SACS accreditation, I will be more than willing to accede to removal of the current wording. Alansohn 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It claim to ride a rocketship to mars, but it won't be included in the article. This is about academics. If you have WP:V that it CAN meet the standards to apply to SACS supply it. However, you can't try to pass this off as being able to enter into the scholarship enviroment with simply desire. I want proof. Until then it aims to seek accreditation is more acceptable than naming specific places it has NO connection to. Arbusto 06:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want a million dollars, and I ain't getting it either. This is about academics, and one part of academics is accreditation, a point that you have made endlessly by inserting multiple redundant versions of statements that confirm that the school is unaccredited. I have repeatedly provided a reliable, verifiable source that the school has specific plans to pursue SACS accreditation, once it qualifies for THECB certification. I have demonstrated, contrary to your assertion, that aspirational phrases in the form of "hopes to" and "plans to" are remarkably common in tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. I don't know what your issue is with this school, but you are again so obsessed with this article that you are going even further off the deep end in creating nonexistent hoops that this article must jump through to obtain your official okee-dokee. The school doesn't claim a connection to SACS, it just says that it plans to apply for accreditation there, which says NOTHING about its present or future ability to meet SACS' qualifications or that BHCTI has any implied, inferred or insinuated connection to SACS. Again, if you can provide a source that contradicts that information, proving that they really don't plan to pursue SACS accreditation, I will be more than willing to accede to removal of the current wording. Otherwise, the current wording will remain unchanged. I will keep out any references to rocket ships to Mars from this article. Alansohn 06:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, it is unaccredited. That is verifiable. It states that it is seeking accreditation. That, too, is verifiable. And that is the current status, which we should reflect. As an when it receives accreditation, if it does, we will reflect that. There is no deadline to meet, and in the mean time we should be open about the accreditation status, because without original research we cannot tell whether this is likely to pass or not, and there is no shortage of unaccredited bible schools which would not. So rather than trading insults, please discuss specifics of what text should change, and to what. If there is any more incivility, editors may be blocked. If there is any more edit warring, editors may be blocked or the article protected (at the wrong version of course). I think you are both losing your sense of perspective here; remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not the Baptist College Advertisement Service or the Department for Outing Diploma Mills. Just the facts please, ma'am. Guy 10:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, thank you for your efforts in trying to mediate this issue and deal with the content of the article. I have worked to improve this encyclopedia article in response to an AfD (which failed), followed by a second AfD (which failed by a far broader margin), which was followed in turn within 36 hours by applying notability tags as part of what seems to be an effort toward a third AfD. I have no connection to this school, no affiliation whatsoever with the movement it represents, and have worked on no other similar article; No edit I have made to the article or comment I have made on the subject can be construed as advertising this or any other Baptist college, or as advocating a point of view for (or against) this school. Yet the "Department for Outing Diploma Mills" accurately characterizes what has occurred with this and dozens of other articles. Repeated edits have been made to remove explicitly sourced statements regarding the school's plans to pursue SACS accreditation, and your independent support for retention of this wording should go a long way to quelling further efforts at their removal. That the only change you could find needed in the article was to reword "planned to receive accreditation" to the more accurate "planned to apply for accreditation", should demonstrate that the article stands on firm footing, as is. Alansohn 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, review: [8]. Arbusto 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It is important to avoid special pleading on behalf of unaccredited schools (or indeed any subject). It can plan to apply for accreditation, and that is neutral. I don't see Arbustoo pressing to change what it says right now, and what it says right now (overall, including that para) seems to me to be pretty satisfactory. Guy 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG/Guy, I'm satisfied with the article in its current state. I'm not sure if I wrote "planned to receive accreditation", but I agree that the more accurate "planned to apply for accreditation" is appropriate and reflects the content of the sources provided. Other than that, all is quiet on the western front. Alansohn 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly did write that and even spawned a revert war over it with namecalling and claiming vandalism/bad faith, etc.[9] You wrote "the website plans to seek... are signs of POV violations" and more telling said "I'm willing to leave with "hopes", as indicated, despite my concerns" when you did the opposite. Can you now see my point and apologize for your ill-behavior? No school can "plan on receiving accreditation" when they don't even meet the requirements to apply. Arbusto 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Arbustoo, you're making even less sense than usual. The current text of the article regarding accreditation reads "As stated on its website, the institute is seeking certification in Texas through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), a process that can take up to two years, during which time the institution may not use degree terminology or imply that it can offer degrees. In 2004, BHCTI said, that upon receipt of Texas certification, it plans to pursue accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the United States Department of Education.", which is how I have edited the article to read since you started your current wave of attacks after your second failed AfD attack on this article. We seem to have clear consensus that the school does indeed plan to pursue SACS accreditation, based on sources from its website and from an explicit, reliably sourced, verifiable article. You are standing out even further from the mainstream as to what reality is with this article. Do you accept the current wording regarding BHCTI's plans to pursue accreditation, yes or no? Alansohn 03:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a difference a year makes![edit]

I have not visited this site since April 2006 when I flagged it for NPOV. Personally, I'm committed to the conservative resurgence of the SBC. I have served as a messenger to the SBC national convention as well as my local and state conventions.

Personally, I feel that BHCTI is trying desperately to appeal to the "historic Baptist principles" by adopting the name of a noted Southern Baptist, ignoring that he the notion of "less creed and more liberty" and his legacy is being illegitmately coopted by those who rattle on about creedalism creeping into the Convention.

However, less than a year later, the article had made major leaps toward avoiding POV, and for this the contributors ought to be commended. I especially appreciate the citations of sources of controversial passages.

To that end, you can count on my vote to keep the article, should it be voted for deletion and the only tag I'm adding this time, is the tag to have it included in the WikiProject Christianity.

Again, nice job. SonPraises 09:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B._H._Carroll_Theological_Institute&oldid=1205567504"