Talk:Patrick Henry College/Archive 1

Outline

Just added a basic outline of the school here, hopefully some enthusiastic students and alumni can fill in the details - but please, restrain yourselves.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Papetti (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 April 2005.

A couple quick comments...

1. Debate goes under Student Life and proper balance should be given to our fine athletics. Also, I don't think we need to flaunt our debate program. Mentioning some of the achievements is good enough without going into details of who won what.

2. Eden Troupe is certainly as much a part of PHC as Debate is.

I would actually suggest taking all of our extracurricular activities and lumping them into 2-3 paragraphs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.179.243.131 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 November 2005.

Vandalism protection

Thank you Khaosworks and HappyCamper for protecting this page. Was this being done by a robot, because it was being vandalised almost twice per minute by at least 3 IP addresses today. Yamaguchi先生 05:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing "Current Faculty" section

I really don't see the point of having this section, seeing as none of the faculty are notable. I don't see the faculty listed on other college articles and don't see why this article should be any different. If anyone feels differently, feel free to state your case. Aplomado - UTC 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know the URL of the unofficial PHC student forum? If you do, could you leave a note on my user page? Thanks --64.113.81.179 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To FeloniousMonk: Faculty resignations controversy

I reverted your changes to this article for the following reasons: 1) You chopped out the portion of the section that describes why they believed there was a lack of academic freedom, 2) It's redundant to mention the same information almost verbatim twice, and 3) the sentence: "One faculty member was fired and the four others resigned in protest, citing issues concerning academic freedom versus the college's Biblical Worldview policy which all faculty and students must sign." They didn't resign because they had a problem with the Biblical Worldview policy, they resigned because they had a problem with what they perceived as a lack of freedom in the classroom. Aplomado ^talk 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't separate cause from effect. The Biblical Worldview policy is what restricted their academic freedom. The original sources and description that you've reverted to are inaccurate. The LA Times article tells the actual story. FeloniousMonk 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're way off base and obviously not familiar with the conflict. Who is claiming that the Biblical Worldview restricts academic freedom? The claims you are making are essentially original research, since it is not cited in any news article. All the article says is, "One faculty member was fired and four others resigned in protest, saying the administration prohibited free-ranging discussions at what has been called the 'Evangelical Ivy League.'" Exactly how familiar are you with this issue and Patrick Henry College in general? Also, who are you to declare these other sources "inaccurate"? The fact that you are declaring such a thing indicates you may be biased and violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You are drawing conclusions not made in any of the cited sources.

Please do not delete the information again unless you have a good reason for it other than you don't like the sources. Aplomado ^talk 22:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, the original content is inaccurate and relies on two flawed cites: 1) an article in leesburg2day.com [1] dated Mar 23, 2006, and 2) a broken link to chronicle.com [2]. The only function support, leesburg2day.com, is a small, local publication with unknown journalistic standards and the article was written. In other words, the original content is largely unsupported and what support it does enjoy is dated, likely overtaken by new information.

The simplified content I've added on the other hand is supported by a recent (May 13 2006) article by the LA Times: [3] The LA Times article tell a distinctly different story, and provides a fuller, more complete and balanced picture than that given by leesburg2day.com, which when read in comparion is largely out-of-date. The LA Times article also attributes statements to the relevant parties, something the leesburg2day.com article does little of. The journalistic standards of the LA Times is a known quantity; we can be certain the article was well researched and fact-checked prior to publication.

When we have a choice between two sources, as editors we are required by policy to go with the better source. That would be the LA Times article. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't indicated where in the La Times article, or in any other article, that it says the professors left because of the Biblical Worldview. They have, on the other hand, stated on many occasions in numerous sources that they support the Worldview, they believe the Administration was at fault for restricting academic freedom. I've fixed the Chronicle of Higher Education source, but again you are drawing conclusions they aren't being drawn in any of the articles.

• The Chronicle: The controversy has pitted the college's president and founder, Michael P. Farris, against many of its professors. He has challenged their fidelity to a biblical worldview, and they have challenged his commitment to the liberal arts. "When he accuses us of not buying into the vision of the college, we have to scratch our heads," said M. Todd Bates, an assistant professor of rhetoric, who is leaving after this semester. "We came here because of the vision. The question is: What has happened to that vision?"
• LA Times: The controversy began last fall after M. Todd Bates, a professor of rhetoric, delivered a lecture about St. Augustine's search for truth that Farris faulted for not mentioning the Bible or the college's Christian mission. Patrick Henry does not offer its professors tenure, and after Bates was criticized, he and eight other professors made a pact that if one of them was dismissed, the rest would leave in protest, Noe said.
• Here's another source you may not have seen yet (since it is fairly recent) that seems to indicate that the professors have a problem with Farris, not the Worldview. This is from an interview with Professor Root: "Q: Do you think there is academic freedom at Patrick Henry College? A: As it exists right now I would say no, or if there is it's very limited. The professors that want to explore ideas, talk about certain issues even within the biblical worldview at Patrick Henry College, have a rough go of it … Even the questions that students can ask in class are under scrutiny because of the way the president interprets the biblical worldview. So even questions that are asked, ideas that are explored within the biblical worldview of Patrick Henry College sometimes come under scrutiny, even if they're not outside the biblical worldview, because of disagreements that the president might have with a certain person, what this person is saying."[4]

Also, I've replaced the Leesburg Today source with the LA Times, even though it says essentially the same thing. Aplomado ^talk 23:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you just add the supporting link to the inaccurate content? The content you have the LA Times article allegedly supporting has nothing to do with the article. In fact, the article contradicts it on several points. Um, that won't fly. It's better to just simply state the facts and let the article tell the story. I'm cutting the content down again to do just that. FeloniousMonk 23:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The LA Times article says Biblical Worldview policy is central here:

"The specific issues that led to the firing and resignations are abstruse, but they revolve around the question of how the ideas and writings of nonevangelical thinkers such as Catholics or the ancient Greeks should be treated in the classroom."[5]

The Biblical Worldview policy states: "Any biology, Bible or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God's creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six twenty-four hour days. All faculty for such courses will be chosen on the basis of their personal adherence to this view. PHC expects its faculty in these courses, as in all courses, to expose students to alternate theories and the data, if any, which support those theories. In this context, PHC in particular expects its biology faculty to provide a full exposition of the claims of the theory of Darwinian evolution, intelligent design and other major theories while, in the end, teach creation as both biblically true and as the best fit to observed data." [6] It doesn't take much homeskool'n to see that the Biblical Worldview policy is the cause of the concern over lack of academic freedom. FeloniousMonk 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"It doesn't take much homeskool'n to see that the Biblical Worldview policy is the cause of the concern over lack of academic freedom." We call this "original research." You have arrived at a conclusion that isn't found in the LA Times article.

In any event, the section on biology has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, and you're demonstrating that you aren't really familiar with either the college's history or the issues raised here.

The complaints stemmed not from concerns over creationism being taught in the schools, but from what the professors deemed as Farris's narrow interpretation of the Biblical Worldview as it related to discussing the views of pagan philosophers such as Marx and Machiavelli. Again, let me cite Mr. Root: "So even questions that are asked, ideas that are explored within the biblical worldview of Patrick Henry College sometimes come under scrutiny, even if they're not outside the biblical worldview, because of disagreements that the president might have with a certain person, what this person is saying." While you insist that the media sources cited indicate that the lack of academic freedom is caused by the Biblical Worldview, the professors have insisted time and time again that they acted within the Biblical Worldview and that Farris acted as a dictator in imposing his own narrow interpretation rather than take it before the Board of Trustees for a ruling. This is very different from rejecting the Biblical Worldview statement, which you are indicating in the article.

Quite frankly, you clearly have an axe to grind. Surely you may view the college's Biblical Worldview as restricting academic freedom, and you are entitled to that opinion. You aren't entitled to put it in an encyclopedia article, forcing the article to take one side of a contentious debate.

If the debate isn't about creationism, don't paint it as if it is about creationism. As someone who went to the school for four years and knows quite well both the professors and Farris, I am quite in tune with what this debate is about.

To put it bluntly, you're flat wrong. Still, I will make a request for consensus to settle this issue. Aplomado ^talk 01:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to this comment: Hmmm, so you just add the supporting link to the inaccurate content? The content you have the LA Times article allegedly supporting has nothing to do with the article.

The material sourced by LA Times:

• In March of 2006, four members of the college's faculty -- Assistant Professor of Classics David C. Noe, Assistant Professor of History and Literature J. Kevin Culberson, Chairman of the Department of Government Robert Stacey and Instructor of Government Erik S. Root -- announced their resignation due to complaints over a lack of academic freedom at the school.

Quote from the LA Times:

• One faculty member was fired and four others resigned in protest, saying the administration prohibited free-ranging discussions at what has been called the "Evangelical Ivy League."

What is wrong with this? Aplomado ^talk 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: This article has been added to: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy Aplomado ^talk 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding disputed tag

If you want to include a section in this article listing the criticisms of the closed-mindedness of the college's Biblical Worldview, go ahead, and I would even encourage it. But it's factually inaccurate and even dishonest to frame the debate as if it is over whether or not the Biblical Worldview statement restricts academic freedom when no one who is involved in the debate is making this claim.

I've reverted your edits to the original version and have placed a disputed tag over the section. I kindly ask that you show respect for other editors and not continually revert the section until the dispute is resolved. Aplomado ^talk 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just intentional disruption on your part. You fail at making the case for why your favored content is not factually inaccurate, so you claim it's disputed? No. It takes more than one wilfully obtuse and disgruntled editor to make a credible NPOV objection. The following passage is accurate and up to date, as opposed to the inaccurate passage you're edit warring to keep in the article.

"In March of 2006, five of the college's sixteen faculty members left the college. One faculty member was fired and the four others resigned in protest, citing issues concerning academic freedom in relation to the college's Biblical Worldview policy which all faculty and students must sign."

In this passage the facts are supported by the following cited published statements:

1. PHC has a Biblical Worldview policy which all faculty and students must sign. [7]
2. 5 of the college's 16 faculty members left the college. "Now five of the school's 16 faculty members have left." [8]
3. 1 of the 5 was fired. The other 4 resigned in protest. "One faculty member was fired and four others resigned in protest, saying the administration prohibited free-ranging discussions" [9]
4. The reasons given concern academic freedom in relation to the college's Biblical Worldview policy which all faculty and students must sign. "Another professor, Robert Stacey, read the college's "Biblical Worldview" and statement of faith to his class and asked anyone who thought he had betrayed them to leave (one student did). In response, Farris fired Stacey, Noe said." -- "four others resigned in protest, saying the administration prohibited free-ranging discussions" [10]

Your claim that the passage is pov is less than credible. You have yet to show a single specific point that is unsupported or POV. Your edit warring on this article is disruptive and resulted in you making 6 reversions and earning you a 24 hr block for 3RR. Your misuse of the Accuracy dispute template will be apparent to any neutral readers willing to take the time to double-check the passage above against the LA Times article that supports it. FeloniousMonk 04:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well aren't you a tough guy. You call me "willfully obtuse" and disgruntled? That's rich coming from the person who bullied his way into the article and purposefully instigated an edit war, lashed out at someone who has worked very hard on this article, and generally acted like a God of Wikipedia who can tell other editors what they can and cannot write lest they offend your holier-than-thou sensibilities. You're part of a tired and irritating lot of rogue editors on Wikipedia with bad attitudes, a streak of incivility and a general inability to deal with other human beings. I agree I shouldn't have violated the WP:3RR rule, and there was no excuse for it. But you violated the rule just as egregiously. Consider yourself lucky in staying "under the radar" and avoiding a block for a dispute that you instigated.

Read the following passage and then tell me with a straight face that the professors walked out because they didn't like the Biblical Worldview statement:

• PROFESSOR ROOT: Q: Do you think there is academic freedom at Patrick Henry College? A: As it exists right now I would say no, or if there is it's very limited. The professors that want to explore ideas, talk about certain issues even within the biblical worldview at Patrick Henry College, have a rough go of it … Even the questions that students can ask in class are under scrutiny because of the way the president interprets the biblical worldview. So even questions that are asked, ideas that are explored within the biblical worldview of Patrick Henry College sometimes come under scrutiny, even if they're not outside the biblical worldview, because of disagreements that the president might have with a certain person, what this person is saying.[11]

Root completely contradicts your edits and the statements you're making about the situation. And I don't think I'm the only one who trusts his version over that of some anonymous Wikipedia editor.

I have two questions I'd like you to answer, and I'd like you to find a quote from a reliable source to back up your answer:

• Did Farris criticize the school's Biblical Worldview statement?
• Did any of the professors criticize the Biblical Worldview statement?

I simply don't understand how anyone can be so willfully ignorant as to not recognize the root of this debate, which is very clear and obvious. I have no idea why I even need to explain this. I'm beginning to think I may just be dealing with a stubborn 14-year-old who doesn't understand that concept of working with other people. In no source does any professor criticize this Worldview statement, and yet you continue to insist this without having one shred of evidence to back this up. Then you come on these discussion boards and talk tough, as if I'm the one being disruptive for questioning your edits, which amount to original research.

I've placed disputed tags on the inaccurate edits until I can fix the NPOV problems you've created in the article. I hate to break it to you, FeloniousMonk, but you are fighting a losing battle. Aplomado ^talk 20:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to respond to your so-called proof that this dispute revolves around the Biblical Worldview statement.

• PHC has a Biblical Worldview policy which all faculty and students must sign. Indeed it does, no dispute here.
• 5 of the college's 16 faculty members left the college. "Now five of the school's 16 faculty members have left." Indeed they did.
• 1 of the 5 was fired. The other 4 resigned in protest. "One faculty member was fired and four others resigned in protest, saying the administration prohibited free-ranging discussions" And here's the kicker. Right here, in your own proof, the source makes it clear that the administration prohibited academic freedom. Not the Worldview statement, the administration. Are you really confusing the two? Did you think the professors came to the college, signed the statement and then six years (or however long) after they said "hey, wait a second, we don't agree with this Worldview statement anymore." It's not just absurd, it's patently absurd, and it shows that your arguments come out of ignorance of the subject.
• The reasons given concern academic freedom in relation to the college's Biblical Worldview policy which all faculty and students must sign. "Another professor, Robert Stacey, read the college's "Biblical Worldview" and statement of faith to his class and asked anyone who thought he had betrayed them to leave (one student did). In response, Farris fired Stacey, Noe said." -- "four others resigned in protest, saying the administration prohibited free-ranging discussions" Again, you're only proving my point. Stacey read the Biblical Worldview in class because he strongly believed that he was abiding by the statement, and challenged the class to suggest that he wasn't. This is a dispute over what the Worldview statement means, much in the same way the people there debate the proper interpretation of passages in the Bible or the Constitution.

So you see that your proof completely falls apart because you don't understand the context of the issue. I suggest reading up a little more about what this is about and then coming back once you understand it so you can make valid contributions to this article. In the meantime, don't muddy the waters for Wikipedia readers. Aplomado ^talk 20:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• The way I see the matter, we should mention the dispute at Patrick Henry College in one or two sentences, but IN A FACTUAL WAY AND MANNER, not provocing or exagerating the situation. Habemus pampam 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify specifically what you are referring to? Aplomado ^talk 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Aplomado, I have been observing your edits on this page for several months now, and am increasingly disturbed by the way in which you habitually treat it as YOUR article and nobody elese's, insisting on reverting any edits that dare to alter what you've decided the "official version" of the story should be. When a user finally comes along and challenges you on it, you call him disruptive and say that for all you know, he could be some punk 14 year old kid who bullied his way into YOUR article. You obviously have no comprehension of the fact that Wikipedia is open to all editors, and that no one person can claim ownership of a specific article--particularly one on a college with 300 some students. There are at least 300 of us who have an interest in this article, and to go around blustering about how this person is screwing up the article you've "worked hard on." Perhaps you should try being open to versions of the story but your own for once. DebateLord 6-1-06

You mean like your edit that I reverted a little while ago? Well, I do have to give your credit for airing your grievances on the talk page rather than the article, unlike FeloniousMonk.

This is a controversial subject at the college. Obviously you feel that the professors were wrong, but both sides need to be presented to meet NPOV. Do you have a problem with the current version? If not, why are you complaining? There was a spat over the interpretation of the sources, and I admitted I was wrong to violate the 3RR rule. This belaboring of the point is totally unnecessary on your part, however. Aplomado ^talk 06:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the above wasn't my edit, though I've been meaning for a while to mention that I don't think the SaveRoot site is exactly encyclopedic, as all it is is one [rather poorly done] page saying nothing more than "we want answers." It doesn't really contribute anything to the article except further acknowleding that a few students are really ticked off at the administration. But I did not edit that as I knew you'd just put it right back. I myself have only made a few minor edits to the PHC article in the past, and only now got around to actually creating an account. As for the current article, I think you actually may be right on some points as the professors did at least claim it was a dispute over academic freedom and not the Biblical Worldview statement itself--more of an "as applied" situation instead of an "on its face" deal. However, I think your version overly favors the professors in some places as well and doesn't suceed in being NPOV. My point in posting here was not necessarily to dispute particular parts of the article, but to protest your behavior in treating this article like you are the only one who has any say over it, and generally being obnoxious to anyone who dares change it. I for one would encourage you to stop treating FM like he's some punk kid, when he's obviously another PHC student like you and I (I'm a sophmore by the way and was present duirng the whole controversy), and work out a compromise instead of waging continual edit wars and generally causing both of you to make fools of yourselves. DebateLord 6-2-06

Look, if you've got a problem with the article, point it out. It's ridiculous to suggest that I'm being obnoxious and protective of the article when as you will see my reverts are when anonymous users come in and remove material without comment. They don't add, they don't reword, they don't make any effort to make contributions, they just remove stuff they don't like and don't bother to say why. Aside from the incident the other night, I have absolutely stayed within the rules in editing the article.

You have a perfectly legitimate point on the SaveRoot site, but the people who come on here and delete stuff don't say anything. In fact, I'm removing it because you make a great point about the website. Just treat other editors with respect is all I ask. Post a tiny little comment with your edit that say "this website doesn't add anything to the discussion except indicate that such people exist", and if I disagree let's hash it out on the talk page. FeloniousMonk's attitude was here's what I think, and rather than work it out with other editors, screw you if you don't like the edits.

"However, I think your version overly favors the professors in some places as well and doesn't suceed in being NPOV." Elaborate, and I will work to fix it. Or go ahead and make the edits yourself. Aplomado ^talk 06:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, FM is definitely not a PHC student. He is not defending either Farris or the Professors. It's clear from his edits and his posts on the talk page that he thinks the idea that a school can have both academic freedom and a Biblical Worldview statement that all must sign is ludicrous to begin with. Aplomado ^talk 07:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To John the mackem

You added: "In June, the Channel 4 TV network in the United Kingdom aired a documentary titled "God's Next Army" focusing on the link between the college and the US administration, and the political emphasis of study subjects. The programme-makers suggested that students were being primed for life as politicans or political lobbyists, with the eventual intention of building enough political strength to turn the United States into a Christian Republic. The programme also drew attention to the ties between the college and the current US administration."

I removed it for a number of reasons:

• Why is this documentary notable enough to be included in the History section? There have been a number of media outlets that have produced or written something about the college, this is just the latest instance.
• "... with the eventual intention of building enough political strength to turn the United States into a Christian Republic." This definitely needs to be sourced if it's going to be included.
• It essentially just rehashes a bunch of stuff that's already mentioned in the article, such as the ties between the college and the current US administration, the political emphasis of study subejcts and the fact that students are slated towards jobs in politics. There's no new revelations here.

Any response? Aplomado ^talk 03:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK fair enough. I thought the "God's Next Army" documentary, which is international in it's eventual audience, represented a whole new level of international attention for the college. Certainly there will be few British people who will have heard of it before the programme aired. You said there are no new revelations here, but the whole "Cristian Republic" claim, which is pretty much the empahsis of the documentary, is not even hinted at in the parts of the article about the college that discuss media attention and controversy. With regards to the "Christian Republic" comment, it was a direct quote from the programme itself. Not sure how you else you would want me to source it, given that I am directly describing the source.

I you want to omit it, that's fine. But the article is very Americo-centric, and thanks to documentary this college has just recieved a serious burst of international attention. Personally, if you don't want to give it it's own article, I think it at least warrants a mention in something like this:

• "The school has been a magnet for media attention from its inception, attracting reports from every major network and cable news organization, and being the subject of articles in Time Magazine, The Economist, the New York Times, and others. Initially the interest seemed to stem from the fact that the college, which was founded by the Homeschool Legal Defense Association and deliberately sought students with homeschooled backgrounds, represented a "coming-of-age" for the homeschooling movement at large. As time went on, it also attracted notice because of a perceived closeness with the Bush administration, which had given the school's students a number of White House internships and opportunities. In the spring of 2004, of the almost 100 student interns working in the White House, seven were from Patrick Henry College, which had 240 students at the time. This link was also investigated in a documentary entitled "Gods Next Army" aired in June 2006 by the Channel 4 TV network in the United Kingdom. The programme-makers suggested that, through a strong political syllabus, the college students were being primed for careers as politicians or political lobbyists, with the eventual aim of creating enough political influence to turn the United States into a Christian Republic."

John the mackem 11:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can see adding it from the standpoint that it gives an international aspect to it. One question, though. I seem to remember that a documentary about the school entitled "God's Next Army" was to air on a Discovery subsidiary here in the U.S. a couple weeks ago. I didn't see it, is it a British documentary or did it simply happen to get played on a television station in the UK? Also, we need to know where specifically it was aired in the UK and whether it was widespread enough for us to be able to call it a "burst" of international attention. Aplomado ^talk 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Added "external link" to Channel 4's page associated with the documentary which aired tonight in the UK - 8pm 5th June 2006. -Chris.
    • Thanks, I think that will be fine, although if John would still like to add a short blurb to mention the international attention (assuming that it is widespread enough), he's welcome to do so. Aplomado ^talk 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Super Ted

In a recent radio phone in, the former president of Patrick Henry College commented that the college held the view that their faith was the only true faith and path to heaven, and that tolerance of other faiths was a bad thing. This teaching of intolerance was seen as dangerous by some members of the press. Concerns were expressed that this viewpoint was a threat to American democracy, considering that the founding fathers of America made no mention of a particular religion in their original documents.

Alright, here's my problem with this wording:

• It doesn't specify what radio station he called in to, how recent it was or even who exactly the former president is.

• Most importantly, you can't base a "criticisms" section based on the views of a single columnist from the Cincinnati Post. That's not a widespread opinion. You say "some members of the press" and quote one person. If you can quote more people, go ahead and include them, I'll even help you. But in its current state this just won't do.

• Finally, the section just isn't very well written both grammatically and stylistically.

--Aplomado ^talk 18:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Admittedly I have only recently heard of this college, and don't know an awful lot about it. Looking at the article, I am concerned regarding its current stance.

I apologise for the poor writing, and would appreciate your assistance in developing the criticisms section so as to improve the article's NPOV status.

As far as I can tell from press comments, the main concerns are:

• The teaching of creationism (common criticism of many Christian educational institutions)
• The rejection of Darwinism/evolution (ditto)
• The limited scope of Biblical Worldview, in that allegations have been made this is a view of Farris's and not widespread at all in the Christian community.
• The complete rejection of non-christian texts/sources, without consideration and the impact this is having on debate/academic exploration and expression.
• The idea that a college such as this is trying to place students in positions of power in the United States, in direct contradiction with what the founding fathers intended.

Finding multiple sources to triangulate these statements is difficult owing the the immature nature of the college. As far as I am aware, minority opinions expressed by the press are permitted on wikipedia provided they are not original research (i.e. the journalist is adding information from their own article to wikipedia). If this is not the case feel free to correct. I will look into improving the article over the coming weeks, any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Super Ted 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There's actually been quite a few stories written by Patrick Henry College, so I don't think it'll be difficult to find more sources. I didn't even know the Cincinnati Post had mentioned them. To name a few: Washington Post, Washingotn Times, the New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Chronicle of Higher Education, Christianity Today, Leesburg Today, NPR Fresh Air, and a number of other local and some international sources, not to mention a ton of blogs. I don't really have a problem with listing a minority opinion, I just feel it could be far more comprehensive than the current version.

The criticisms you mentioned do sound about right, however. I'll put some work into it once I get the chance. Aplomado ^talk 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed account

I've removed the account of the firing and staff departures that was supported by the cite to Christian Post. This was for two reasons: 1) It contradicts the account given by the LA Times, already cited; 2) the article in Christian Post was an op-ed piece, whereas the LA Times article is a bit of direct reporting, making it the more reliable of the two sources. FeloniousMonk 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the source doesn't adequately explain the controversy, but once again you've demonstrated that you don't really understand the subject and are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. This is just more sour grapes on your part. Aplomado ^talk 05:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not throw out some ideas and possible solutions rather than throw mud? Constructive participation here will determine the shape of the article, not airing personal issues.

Personal understandings of the event are irrelevant at Wikipedia; only events and their particulars that are supported are going to survive, per WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 16:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk is cheap, your actions indicate you aren't interested in "constructive participation." I agree that both sides need to be represented for it to meet NPOV, but you want your side to be represented; i.e., that there can't be academic freedom in a school that requires its professors to sign a statement of faith that states that creation is right and evolution is wrong. I actually agree with you in that respect, but that's not what this dispute was about, and it's dishonest for you to keep making repeated efforts to make it look that way.

I'll do my part to improve the article once I have the time to do it. Aplomado ^talk 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The account should not have been removed. Please see WP:Verifiability:

Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

It is not up to us to decide which source is right and which source is wrong. By doing so, POV is placed directly into the article. All sides should be presented with appropriate citations so that the reader is aware of the diversity of opinions on the subject. I intend to reinstate the account unless an appropriate counter arguement can be put forward. I have not reverted immediately to try and avoid an edit war. Super Ted 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Aplomado ^talk 21:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what WP:V says. You've missed the point: The description removed from the article was lifted from an op-ed piece, not a piece of simple reporting. Op-ed pieces by definition represent only one viewpoint. FeloniousMonk 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Op-eds do indeed present one viewpoint, but how is that relevant? The issue here is whether the cited information in the Post op-ed is true. The real assertion you're making here is that an op-ed is more prone to factual errors. That's original research I'm afraid.

Let's not forget an earlier comment you made as well: "OK, the original content is inaccurate and relies on two flawed cites: 1) an article in leesburg2day.com [1] dated Mar 23, 2006, and 2) a broken link to chronicle.com [2]. The only function support, leesburg2day.com, is a small, local publication with unknown journalistic standards and the article was written. In other words, the original content is largely unsupported and what support it does enjoy is dated, likely overtaken by new information."

Unless you've got a specific reason to believe that a source is unreliable, you're just picking and choosing what sources you like, which at the very least goes against the spirit of WP:V. Aplomado ^talk 02:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, from my perspective, I think you are both right in your own respective ways. I think the correct way to write the article would be something along the lines of: The recent resignations of a number of faculty members was controversial... A secular news source, the San Francisco Times states that... However, a pro-christian news source wrote a piece describing a different pattern of events...

Obviously a less clumbersome paragraph would be required for the main article, but I hope you get the idea. I can see where FeloniousMonk is coming from about the reliability of sources, and as editors we have a responsibility to ensure that readers are aware of potential conflicts of interest or bias on the part of the publication cited. It is not however up to us to make the decision as the veracity of a particular source. We each have our own personal views which readers can't examine. Therefore quoting a source which we may not agree with, giving the reader a background of that source and allowing them to draw their own conclusions is far more transparent IMHO. Super Ted 07:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I added an external link to the Christianity Today article about Patrick Henry. It is straight up journalism, and a longer article than the LA Times one. I think it is an important viewpoint that should at least have some mention in this article to round out NPOV. Inclusion of a fair and balanced article that was both critical and charitable towards the school, from a Christian journal, is a valuable viewpoint, since the current article appears to set up a false dichotomy between the college and the media, which could possible give the impression that PHC is being criticised by the so-called "liberal media." If anyone thinks this link should be removed please post here and state your reasons beforehand for discussion. AugustinianAnglican 20:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

SaveRoot.com

Why are so many anon IPs continually removing this link? I understand that before the website was little more than a paragraph, but it has been greatly expanded and contains a lot of useful information and links. I think it's very relevant to the article now. Can someone explain to me why they think this link does not belong? I don't want to look like a bully by continually reverting the removal, but I don't feel like I have a choice if no one explains why it should be removed. Aplomado ^talk 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not removed the link yet but as far as I can tell it shouldn't be in the article as it is in violation of guidance on Wikipedia:External_links. In particular:

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)

As far as I can tell, the site consists almost entirely of original research and so should not be linked to. Also Apomado, if I remember correctly you mentioned you were one of the alumni of PHC (apologies if I am mistaken), if this is the case, please note from the same guidance:

Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important — and difficult — objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included.

I am in no way suggesting your edits are suspect in any way, quite the opposite in fact. However, I feel that in a controversial article such as this it would be for the best if we follow wikipedia guidance as far as is possible.

I will remove the link in the next day or so if appropriate counter arguements to prevent its removal are not put forward. Super Ted 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, your points are well taken. However, I'm not a member of the SaveRoot campaign nor do I have anything to do with the site, so I don't think it's a violation to post that website as an external link even though I am an indeed an alumnus.

I'm not sure that the website qualifies as unverified original research, although it is certainly biased. It has a lot of helpful links to blogs and sources related to the controversy, and I feel that this link adds to the article rather than subtracts from it. It's certainly the most notable movement at PHC and has effectively split the campus in two, but if by "notability" the external links policy means a notable source like the Washington Post or something, then I suppose it would violate that policy.

Go ahead and remove it if you see fit. I'm not going to stand in the way of removing the link if I'm the only one that feels that the link is beneficial to the article. Aplomado ^talk 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Aplomado's view and I will go a step further in adding that I think the SaveRoot website fulfills wikipedia guidelines. We are discussing a college that has admitted having an ongoing dialogue over academic freedom. From my reading the SaveRoot website appears to be the noted proponent of the counterpoint view to the college's administration, and it claims to speak for the viewpoint of the departing professors and many students. Does this not count as a "notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view"? And yes, while the site is surely biased, I think it is upfront that it has a point of view and does not claim to be the objective middle ground. Since the official statements of the college are de facto admitted into Wikipedia articles, shouldn't a legitimate if biased counterpoint organization be allowed at lest mention as an external link? AugustinianAnglican 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits on 6/25/06

I reverted these edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Henry_College&diff=60575316&oldid=59553345

Without providing any justification, the editor removed the "Criticisms" section. The other edits don't really add anything to the article, and instead takes away some useful information (such as that the school is unaccredited), chops out significant portions of relevant material and it causes the article to read like a brochure. Aplomado ^talk 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to have a good range of editors contributing to it now which should prove useful in ironing out problems with it. I think it would be useful to give the article some direction to help focus our efforts. Aplomado you seem to be doing a good job of maintaining NPOV. Is there anything in particular I and other interested editors could be of assistance with? As I say I don't know a lot about the college, but I think this could be a very interesting article. It is in danger of a lot of POV edits as we have already seen, and I think we have to ensure we quote appropriate sources when editing the article. So everyone, any suggestions on particular areas which need work? Super Ted 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "Criticisms" should be expanded and worded a little better. The 2006 resignations could also use a little bit of expansion, but not too much. As is I don't think it really explains what happened very well. Aplomado ^talk 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done some things with PHC, and find this article quite well written. One concern to me, however, would be some wording in the "criticisms" section. "In a recent radio phone in, the former president of Patrick Henry College commented that the college held the view that their faith was the only true faith and path to heaven, and that tolerance of other faiths was a bad thing. This teaching of intolerance was seen as dangerous by some members of the press. Concerns were expressed that this viewpoint was a threat to American democracy, considering that the founding fathers of America made no mention of a particular religion in their original documents."

The tolerance/intolerance boils down to a definitional issue. Critics say they're intolerant, Christian conservatives say they tolerate other Faiths, they simply don't think they're correct (not the path to heaven) and shouldn't be encouraged. The reference given was to a vague op-ed, and the former President's radio interview is poorly cited and the exact wording murky. This is a very delicate debate, and it would be unfortunate to, if inadvertently, skew the facts.

-Will

Direct quotes are always preferable to paraphrases. I believe the radio show in question was Fresh Air. The show is available online:[12] FeloniousMonk 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Two (somewhat minor) things

• Someone added a link to a Google video of a documentary. This may bring up some copyright issues.
• An anon editor changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life." Personally I hate using words like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" because they're rhetorical labels meant to obscure the debate. To me it's pro-abortion or anti-abortion, and I believe that's how at least some media outlets are going about it. Nevertheless, since they are both such common terms, I can see why they'd be included. Anyone agree or disagree with using "pro-life" and "pro-choice"?

--Aplomado ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are widely accepted by people who agree with a particular position. To say pro-abortion/anti-abortion it would be just as legitimate to say pro-life/anti-life. Using the phrases more commonly heard and used in either advocacy would be logical, if arguably flawed. - Will

Anti-life? I don't think pro-abortion people would agree that such a term would be just as legitimate. The reason I dislike the terms is that pro-abortion people use "pro-choice" to make it sound like the other side if anti-choice, and the anti-abortion people use "pro-life" to make the other side sound anti-life. On the other hand, those who are pro-abortion would agree that they are pro-abortion, and those who are anti-abortion would agree that they are anti-abortion. Aplomado ^talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the generally accepted terms, which are accepted by the public and by both sides of the debate. Debate exists, of course, about whether the names are appropriate, but they are both the most widely accepted ones. --Tim4christ17 04:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact they are generally accepted is debatable and irrelevant. Wikipedia's NPOV stance is one of its core principles. As has been said above, whether one is pro/anti life or pro/anti choice depends entirely on the POV of the user. Anti/Pro abortion however would be an acceptable term whichever side of the fance you're on. I'd be more than happy to listen to any objections you have to this before I go ahead and edit the article. Thanks for helping with the article by the way! Super Ted 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in late, but I'm not sure "anti-abortion" would be an acceptable term for those on that side of the fence. It's a bit of a loaded term. It kind of implies support for abortion as a first choice, and the viewpoints of pro-choicers can be a bit more complex. (Probably doesn't matter since the term doesn't look like it's in the article, but I thought it needed saying) --220.238.175.38 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Campus Section

After reading the entries for several other universities, I thought it would be appropriate to add a section describing the PHC campus. I plan on adding several pictures in the next week or so, as there are currently no pictures of the campus in the article. I have also updated a few miscellaneous portions of the article and added a sentence mentioning that all faculty vacancies resulting from the spring 2006 controversy have been filled, referencing the PHC press release to that effect. --DebateLord 18:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Added multiple pictures of various locations around the campus. Also made a few minor changes to the article; moved the "Campus" section closer to the top of the article; and added the "Student Government" section.--DebateLord 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

saveroot.com

http://www.saveroot.com/ is down. — goethean ॐ 20:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Opening

Would like to revise the opening paragraph to resemble that of similar colleges. This would remove the immediate in-your-face non-accredited remark without leaving it out. Would change to read as follows:

Patrick Henry College, or PHC, is a private, non-denominational Protestant college that focuses on teaching classical liberal arts and government, located in Purcellville, Virginia. It is the first college in America founded specifically for Christian home-schooled students. The college is known for its evangelical Christian focus and its ties to the Republican Party. Although not regionally accredited, the university is a member of, and candidate for accreditation by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, an accrediting organization recognized by the Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.[1]

Anyone have a problem with this?

- Holywoodhills 25 Sep 2006

Okay, no comments, I'll go ahead and change. Thanks!

- Holywoodhills 09 Oct 2006

Lake Bob

Would someone please stop changing all references to Lake Bob to the "Farris Sea"? I don't care if that name is mentioned in an old news article; it simply isn't called that. As a current student, I can personally attest to the fact that it is universally referred to as 'Lake Bob' by students and faculty alike. Also, would whatever student who is responsible for the recent vandalism please quit it? Wikipedia is not the place to play your stupid jokes or air your grudges against the school. In doing so, you just make youselves look like fools. Thanks.--DebateLord 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted SaveRoot.com

I have deleted the references to saveroot.com in the Religious Affiliations section, as the site has since been taken down and has been offline for more than a month. If anyone feels that was inappropriate, feel free to voice your concerns.--DebateLord 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the History

The school was incorporated in 1998 by Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. It officially opened September 20, 2000, with a class of 90 students.

In the Statistics

Classes began in 2000 with 92 students, and has since grown to approximately 325 students.

Academics section

Would like to remove the first sentence of this section because accreditation is discussed elsewhere in the article and also because the warnings in the statement are not supported.

Anyone have a problem with this?

- Holywoodhills 12 Dec 2006

I think it should be left in, it is worth pointing out that the degrees has not been independently validated, which in its self is unusual for a academic programes. I don't think it's important enough to be in such a prominent position in the section, as it misleads the reader into thinking the accrediation is more important than the programmes offered, which clearly isn't the case. You also quite rightly point out that it is already mentioned in both the history and the introduction. The supporting information can be found here Fasach Nua 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a balancing statement to the accreditation thing. Additionally, that templated statement is not entirely correct with respect to PHC - use of the degree should be valid everywhere because PHC is officially authorized to grant degrees by the Commonwealth of Virginia. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits 23 December

[13]

The above edit was made, and reverted on the grounds of "POV" and "Vandalism", and while it may have been flamebait, I dont think it is either "POV" as it is stating refenced facts, and it is not "vandalism" as it does add something to the article. I think the best way to deal with this would be if someone has any independent evidence that "the college currently has been authorized to offer degrees in the Commonwealth of Virginia", to post it as a citation, by quoting the college's website to substantiate this claim may fail WP:VERIFY, especially if this source seems to contradict the The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia - Fasach Nua 10:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have posted in here explaining my reasons for that revert. First of all there was some simple vandalism where the poster with the unknown IP removed two external links (PHC Republicans and Streaming Media Network) with no explanation. Regarding the degree thing, this referenced article was a record of the VA Higher Education council from 2001, in which they initially authorized PHC to grant degrees, with the permission set to expire November 30, 2006. However, since that record was so old and a lot has changed in the accreditation process at PHC, which is currently in its final stages, it didn't actually verify the person's claim that PHC no longer is authorized to grant degrees. The way that sentenced was worded smelled strongly of POV as well, and was a blatant attempt to discredit the college. It would be nice if we had a definitive source saying one way or the other, but we currently only have PHC's statement that they are currently authorized to grant degrees vs. an outdated record that says nothing about whether that authorization actually expired on November 30 or whether it was extended. Until we can find a definitive statement on the matter, I think it would be best not to include that sentence, or at least if it is included put a disputed tag on the article. --DebateLord 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the reorganising of external links [14] by the anon IP that clumped the college links together, which had been erroniously reverted Fasach Nua 13:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PHC is now listed on the CHEA website, fulfilling the state accredited institution requirements for Oregon and presumably the other states, evidently because the school is a candidate for accreditation by an accreditation body recognized by the US Department of Education. See http://www.chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?CheaID=169165. I believe we should now remove the warning remarks about illegalities and non-accreditation. I plan to do this within the next couple of days unless given a good reason not to by more than one contributor. Holywoodhills ^talk 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)