Talk:Meadville Lombard Theological School

Conflict of interest

The EEOC case recently mentioned in the article probably does not belong here at present.

• The user who added this information is apparently the plaintiff in the case.[1] Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy WP:COI indicates that such editing is "strongly discouraged".
• In order to merit inclusion in the article, the lawsuit would need to be mentioned in a published independent source of journalistic quality, such as a newspaper or book, not in a court record only.

Accordingly, I will remove the information (again). Any editor wishing to restore it should please discuss the merits of the case, in the light of Wikipedia policy, on this Talk page. -- Bistropha (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

More Conflict of Interest editing

A member of the board of directors of this theological school recently deleted the "controversies" section on very poor grounds. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

COI editing is a bad thing, but the guy has a point about the sourcing: blogs and other sites with user-generated content are not suitable sources: see WP:SPS. --Bistropha (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Former "Controversies" section: moved here due to inadequate sourcing (blogs, forums)

Throughout the years Meadville Lombard has experienced many changes - described by some as 'a constantly-changing whirlwind relationship' and 'a collapsing and conflict-ridden seminary' - including the high turnover of staff and faculty, have led some to reconsider their loyalties to their alma mater. There is one blog with comments that question the honesty, openness and accountability of the school's administration, its President and the Board after the two failures to merge.

For what it's worth, it's pretty clear that the problem here is not so much with reliable sources, as the original conflict of interest editor claimed. These blogs are clearly reasonable sources for statements of opinion, which is all that they are being used to provide--evidence that students and/or former students have expressed disquiet about the direction of the school. More relevant policies would be those regarding original research and/or undue weight being attached to these dissonant voices.

More generally, as noted above, this article has been the victim of COI editing in the past--from a plaintiff who brought suit against the college. But the cause of the encyclopedia is hardly helped by puffery and COI editing from those affiliated with the school at present. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that a look at the blogs in question shows that senior figures at the college take them, and the disquiet they represent, sufficiently seriously that they are adding their own points of view to the comments threads. See here, for instance (where Larry Ladd, chair of the board, weighs in), as well as here, and here. Poor Larry has had to put out fires all over the place, just as other board members feel the need to intervene on the Wikipedia page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And it turns out the problems with this article go way back, not least this edit from User:MeadvilleLombard, which removed a whole slew of critical observations (which may be correct or otherwise, I have no idea), replacing it with puffery, some of which has survived in the article to this day. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• First: sorry that I neglected to sign the copy/paste above. That was my edit (Bistropha). Thanks for working to spot puffery and COI.

The "Controversies" section above has some flaws. First, the critical opinions should be attributed to their respective people, in the text, but are attributed only in the references. Instead, the text has weasel wording about how Meadville's changes are "described by some".

Also, the quotation from "Jessica" is even weaker than a blog posting. It's from a reader comment on a blog posting. And the reader gave no last name, so this article has contained basically anonymous criticism. Of course, that's not of encyclopedic quality.

About the guideline for RSOPINION: it suggests a newspaper "opinion piece" as an example of an genre that qualifies for RSOPINION. That is more respectable than an individual's blog, which may have no vetting beyond the individual. Can we do better perhaps and locate some press coverage, op-eds, or columns about these Meadville issues? Those would provide a way to report the controversies with stronger sourcing.--Bistropha (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Some material that may be useful: curriculum changes in 2008, an acknowledgement of "a poor record on matters of race", financial decline. --Bistropha (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there is a story here... and it's not actually that hard to piece it together. My worry is that it would indeed be a matter of piecing it together, however, and as such smack a little too much of original research. Again, it seems to me that this is the issue more than sourcing... precisely because much of the discussion (even by senior figures such as the head of the board) has indeed taken places on blogs and other informal social networks. And the school simply isn't important enough (or its problems scandalous enough) for any mainstream journalist to write about it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've integrated some of the material linked above to make a "History: After 2000" section. Hope this helps. --Bistropha (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meadville Lombard Theological School. 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/20140202100852/https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H001238_01H.pdf to https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H001238_01H.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/119614.shtml

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) 05:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)