Talk:Spring Arbor University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Event truth

While it is true that this event involves Chartwells, it is false to say it does not effect the University. The lose of 9 student jobs in the dinning commons suggests the issue has a spot on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.214.60 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The "embezzlement story" involves Chartwells; not Spring Arbor University. Yes, the employee(s) worked for Chartwells at SAU, but it is a Chartwells issue, therefore has no place on SAU's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.214.44 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the embezzlement story has been so ignored. The blurb on this page doesn't give names or assign blame, it merely states a "recent event." The paragraph is clear that it was a Chartwells employee, not even an employee of the university that was involved in the embezzlement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.214.76 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether one likes the Nemecek story or not, it's still a part of SAU's recent history and should not be removed from this entry. "Smear campaign" is hardly what's going on here. SAU is such a small school, more people are likely to come to this Wikipedia article after hearing of the Nemecek story, rather than hearing of the Nemecek story because of this Wikipedia article. Perfect13thStep 05:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The discrimination claim has been dismissed/dropped. I am looking for a quotable source for this.

This should be added to the recent history. Disclaimer: Contributions in this section are maintained by individuals who are not representatives for Spring Arbor University. Spring Arbor University will not make any public comments about the situation.

Disclaimer

I removed the disclaimer again. Wikipedia by nature is maintained by the public and the disclaimer is not necessary. In fact, it is good that this article is not maintained by SAU. X96lee15 21:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put the disclaimer back in. The last statement is a direct quote from these articles.

As X96lee15 stated, the fact that Wikipedia is made to be publicly editable makes such a disclaimer unnecessary. Furthermore, there is a link to the official disclaimer at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia, so posting such a disclaimer in the content of an article is redundant and disrupts the flow of the article. That said, I'm removing the disclaimer again.

It seems to me that those who continue to edit the Recent History are concerned about Spring Arbor's public image due to the Nemecek issue. Wikipedia is not a place that is concerned with any entity's image, positive or negative. Wikipedia is about facts, and everything posted in this article is factual as far as I'm aware.

Also, Springarborresident, please sign your posts on this talk page so we know who you are. All you have to do is type four tildes and it will auto-sign it for you. Perfect13thStep 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to think about combining the History and recent history sections, as well as join the Wikipedia University Entry layout.

Removed the references to the former employee's name. Made it consistent with the rest of the articles in not naming any employee unless they were a president or chairman of the board. If individuals think that personal names should be included they should work on the list of former honorary doctorate recipients which includes Gerald Ford, special award recipients which includes Dan Quayle and Steve Forbes, employees like Hank Burbridge who have national award, recent student leaders like Bridgette Fleagle or Kyle Rudolph or the thousands of other individuals who have a personal relationship with Christ and with modesty and humility contribute to Spring Arbor Concept.

Which is more important the fact the event happen or that the terminated employee gets the recognition? Joshua, what is your opinion? Springarborresident 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Everybody re-read this paragraph from the body of the entry:

"On April 30, 2001, Spring Arbor College became Spring Arbor University. In part, recognizing the wide ranging growth of its degree offerings, its locations and its structure, the change in name also acknowledges new aspirations and an ambitious vision for the future. The move clarifies the school's status internationally, positions the institution to better reach a growing constituency, pushes the entire collegiate community to guard our spiritual heritage and challenges the organization to excel academically and administratively."

Not only is it biased, but it uses "our", suggesting it was written internally. This isn't the only instance of such in the article. Can somebody knowledgeable clean it up with a little more objectivity? Unsigned edit by 24.179.180.180 added by Pollinator 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Most wikipedia entries are copied or 'selectively' edited from the web pages or press releases produced by the organization. If a statement is well written, I have done that in other entries in wikipedia and made the effort to remove the first person reference. If memory serves me, it was part of general press release and duplicated in several newspapers. What would be a recommend statement to remove the first person appeal? Unsigned edit by User:Springarborresident added by Pollinator 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tenses

The tenses for this article is messed up. Stuff that happened years ago is referred to as 'Will be happening', for example. Lots42 (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Largest?

The article indicates that it is the "largest evangelical Christian university in the state of Michigan", however it is stated it has 2,980 students, Calvin College has 4,000, Cornerstone University 3,000, again according to their wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.177.68 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)