Talk:Gordon College (Massachusetts)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lilyisaplant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

POV

This article reads like an advertisement and most of the information seems directly lifted from the Gordon College website. I'm going to label it POV. Please try to make this article objective and try to find more sources for information. -Fearfulsymmetry 16:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also added cleanup tag. -Fearfulsymmetry 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Even as a Gordon graduate and proponent of the school, I'm inclined to agree. It reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedia article. -Andrew 23:28, 31 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.216.199 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GordonLogo.gif

Image:GordonLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Howard was not Fired

An anonymous user added this sentence to the article:

The college gained some notoriety in the mid-1980s, when faculty member Thomas Howard was "obliged to resign" after converting to Catholicism.

While the statement does have a supporting reference (from a Gordon professor, no less), it's worded in a misleading fashion that implies that Gordon ousted Howard. Thomas Howard resigned on his own initiative and openly admits this. He was "obliged to resign" because as a Roman Catholic, he no longer believed in the college's mission - Gordon is a non-denominational college that embraces all Christians, while the Roman Catholic Church is an exclusive, sectarian institution that claims to be the "one true Church" and that all other Christian traditions are in rebellion against the authority of the Pope. It's unfair to paint the college as prejudiced because a professor who believes the college has no right to exist unless it turns over its property and endowment to the local Catholic bishop decides that he can't teach there. For what it's worth, Thomas Howard wrote a book called "Evangelical Is Not Enough" where he admits that he converted to the Roman Catholic Church mainly because he liked it from an aesthetic perspective (Howard was an English prof), and that he picked the Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church simply because he was a Western Christian and no real insight into which of the two competing "one true Churches" really was the "one true Church." --ManicBrit (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll chime in here. Remember that encyclopedias, and Wikipedia in particular, focus on the verifiable. Removing sourced statements is most definitely frowned upon. So, what did that source say? You may have a more nuanced view, but verifiable sources take precedence. And original research may quickly become an issue here, so let's be sure to avoid that, as well. Here are my questions: 1) was the source a RS and 2) was it really quoted? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So I just looked at the source -- it's definitely written with the idea that some professors at evangelical colleges are being obliged by the colleges themselves. I'm curious about the perspective that "this isn't Gordon College's fault -- the Roman Catholic Church is exclusive and Thomas Howard resigned for that reason" (at least that's how I'm reading what otherwise seems like a non sequitur comment about an "exclusive, sectarian institution"). A search for Thomas Howard + Gordon College also produces this blog post, which includes some interesting primary source material that would back up the perspective of the RS used in the article. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I know how busy we can all get but I haven't seen a reply in a couple of days. Either way, though, the sources seem to support the original phrasing. Will revert, since it used a reliable source. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems I must have hit the "preview" button instead of the "save page" button. I know I did reply. But no matter.

Thomas Howard resigned from Gordon College because he no longer believed in its vision, and right before he handed in his resignation he published a full-length book disparaging the college's religious underpinnings, going as far as saying that evangelicals weren't part of "the Church," that their style of worship was a travesty, and that they needed to re-institute an episcopal church government and adopt belief in Transubstantiation - and that was the book's FIRST edition. In the second edition, he wrote that they all needed to join the Roman Catholic Church. This is not "original research." I have a copy of Howard's "Evangelical is Not Enough" in a box in my attic, and if it's an issue, I'll gladly spend half an hour looking for it and produce verbatim quotes. I'm sure that any college has numerous instances of professors resigning - sometimes being prodded to resign, or outright fired - because they turned against their institution's mission and said inflammatory things about their institutions and philosophies. Few if any of these instances are worthy of note in encyclopedia articles about these institutions.

The way it's worded in the article - that Gordon "gained notoriety" after it "obliged" Howard to resign - makes it sound like Gordon was a nasty, bigoted, Bob-Jones-University-esque institution that fired Howard due to anti-Catholic bigotry. This is also a rather short article about Gordon, and the bit about Howard is an odd rhetorical turn that inflates this minor HR incident into a defining black mark against the institution. This is strange, considering that Gordon is a college that's refused to bow to the Religious Right, admitted the likely truth of evolution, allowed gay activists to present their side of the story to students, and even allowed Thomas Howard back on campus on several occasions to present Catholic apologetics to the students. So we have a college that has its detractors in the evangelical community for being "too liberal" being presented here on Wikipedia as an intolerant, bigoted fundamentalist college. Of course, some enterprising Gordon staffer or student might decide to post more about the Howard affair in the Wikipedia article - noting what Howard had written, his commitment to being a Catholic evangelist devoted to converting evangelicals to the "true faith," and the reasons why this conflicts with the college's multi-denominational vision...but I hardly think this would add to the encyclopedia quality of the article. Of course, they might also decide to share some of these factoids with you via a letter from their lawyers.--ManicBrit (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's all great stuff, but it needs to be properly placed. Go to Thomas Howard (writer and scholar) and add all that stuff in there. You can then go more in-depth about Howard's particular views and link to that article from this article (this isn't the place for being extra particular about Howard, only his relationship to Gordon as a former faculty member). And what I've read thus far makes this sound like more than a "minor HR incident" (that one article about Wheaton is about Catholics at evangelical colleges, and saw fit to reference Howard's departure from Gordon) and I don't think it's a "black mark against the institution" at all -- see, that's a concern about the reputation of the college, while we aim to simply be factual about such matters here at Wikipedia. Let me pose a question: is including data on Catholic University of America that says it has one of the largest (perhaps the largest -- I can't recall) black-white graduation rate gap of all the institutions of higher education in the United States about having a "black mark" against Catholic University? Not at all! It's merely a question of reliable sources and verifiability. No matter how you think this particular statement "makes it sound", it appears to use a direct quote from a reliable source. Frankly (and I hope I'm not being too frank but just clear enough to make the point that needs to be made here), how you think it sounds doesn't matter as much here -- Wikipedia has broader guidelines (WP:V in this case) than your opinion (or mine, for that matter). Deleting sourced information along with references because you don't like how it "sounds" to you certainly isn't what we're going for here. That being said (I really hope I wasn't too harsh!), your opinion is still valued, for sure -- if you can find a way to word it without pushing POV, and sticking to the sources, then feel free to do so! So, to recap: concerns about "how it sounds" and a "black mark on the institution" aren't nearly as relevant here as what Wikipedia's says about verifiability not truth. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think that saying Gordon College "gained notoriety," which means "ill-repute" according to dictionary.com, is an accurate statement. Gained a bad reputation with who? That's quite a value judgment, and the cited source doesn't say anything about Gordon getting a bad reputation - it just poses the question of whether evangelical colleges can have faculty members who are Christian but from traditions hostile to evangelicalism.

But in the constructive spirit, I'm going to add a section of "notable faculty" and put Howard there, with his story worded in a more neutral and accurate way.--ManicBrit (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You can definitely change the "gained notoriety" bit; you're right that the value judgment isn't ideal. The problem of removing sources still exists with your most recent edit, however, and now there's a new problem, too -- these articles aren't supposed to have lists like that; they're supposed to have well-document paragraph-format sections on notable alumni and faculty members. So we now have a list that adheres neither to UNIGUIDE nor to VERIFY. It shouldn't be too hard to fix, though. I'll just make it a paragraph and re-add the source, to make it meet guidelines, but change the "gained notoriety" bit for the same reason (albeit different guidelines!). --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

I am going to add Gordon's statement of faith to which students are required to affirm before attending (speaking from personal experience). I think it is misleading to say that Gordon College is a "mostly Christian school" as it reflects a bias in the opening paragraph. All students affirm a statement of faith which adheres to the tenets of contemporary evangelical Christian conviction. Of course not all students are Christian, or remain Christian afterwards, however that is no different than any other religious institution. Gordon's admissions page includes "We develop the next generation of Christian leaders. Our classes, programs, and outreach opportunities span the globe and emphasize service over self." So why be dicey and say "mostly Christian" that's like saying the people who go to Church are "mostly Christians"- you need a published statistic or source for that version of the story to be verifiable. I'd suggest a subsection for such discussion (which I think is valuable!). I will also reference the "Christian Faith Reference" requirement from the admissions page.Coemgenv (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination controversy

Hi User:15ryann. If you want to remove the "Discrimination controversy" section, please list your reasons here and wait for consensus. For now, I restored it because it's well-cited and notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for its subjects and not to be censored simply because some wish certain material omitted. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your contributions! FourViolas (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gordon College (Massachusetts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141206063719/http://www.gordon.edu/ajgordon to http://www.gordon.edu/ajgordon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gordon College (Massachusetts). 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/20141206063719/http://www.gordon.edu/ajgordon to http://www.gordon.edu/ajgordon

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Organizational Issues

There are some structural issues with the page. For example, under the heading "Campus," there are two subheadings: "Benefactors" and "Gordon IN" (which outlines the study abroad options), neither of which are actually about the campus. If anyone has information to add about the campus itself, please do. For now, I will relocate these paragraphs to under a different heading. It is also of note that the issues of POV are still relevant, and it appears that much of the information comes straight from the school's website and reads as a marketing brochure. Lilyisaplant (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)