Talk:Faculty Commons

Article title

I direct editors' attention to WP:TITLE#Use the most easily recognized name -- "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". 'Christian Leadership Ministries' is more easily recognisable than 'Faculty Commons', and the latter is a highly ambiguous title. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that none of the activities described in the article were initiated after the name-change, so it is accurate to ascribe them to the old name. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added several sources about Faculty Commons that took place after the name change, and they all refer to the organization as Faculty Commons. I'm sure if we continue to do research, we'll find that the organization is now referred to as Faculty Commons.--Sixtrojans (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No you haven't. (i) Two is not "several", (ii) both the 'National Faculty Leadership Conferences' and encouraging "integrat[ing] their faith into their academic discipline" were pre-existing activities (as is documented in the article). Neither of these sources is third party, and to date no third party has referred to them as anything other than CLM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that Faculty Commons and Dartmouth were the same. Wow, that's one influential group.--Sixtrojans (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This piece is written in the first person by a CLM member. Wow, that was a silly comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Dartmouth newsletter again. John Walkup's first person narrative is part of a collection that they do on alumni.--Sixtrojans (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again! That it is part of a collection is irrelevant, when the pieces are clearly written (in the first person, you do know what that means don't you?) by the alumni themselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: What is the correct title for this article?

Is the correct title for this article "Faculty Commons" or "Christian Leadership Ministries"?

Discussion

Per WP:TITLE:

• "Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers."
  • All this organization's notable activities were initiated under the title CLM.
  • All third party sources to date have used CLM as its name.
  • Further, this organization's website still uses CLM to describe itself.[1]
  • Further, further, they are still using clm.org domain for their email addresses. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous."
  • "Faculty Commons" is ambiguous as (i) it conceals the organization's religious nature and (ii) as it is a phrase that would commonly be used in other contexts. CLM suffers from neither of these deficiencies.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I added third party sources tonight that only refer to the organization by its new name -- Faculty Commons. You may not like the name the organization picked for itself, but how do you think you have the right to refuse to recognize it? If someone does look up the organization by the old name (Christian Leadership Ministries) they can be redirected to Faculty Commons.--Sixtrojans (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither mention was for activities that weren't already ongoing under the CLM title. Your 'National Faculty Leadership Conferences' reference referred to it as "Our conference", and was clearly simply a reproduction of PR blurb and so not third party. Your claims as to what I may or may not like are (i) in violation of WP:AGF & (ii) irrelevant. Kindly address policy and the facts, rather than engaging in spurious ad hominem attacks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum -- the Dartmouth Engineer ref isn't third party either, as it was written by a CLM/FC member alumni. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

John Walkup is a Dartmouth alumnus. The editors of the Dartmouth Engineer interview alumni and publish updates about what they are doing in their newsletter. Hrafn, I've noticed that you don't have any trouble citing the personal blogs of scholars who support your POV, yet blogs don't have any editorial oversight at all. A neutral university department newsletter covering an alumnus who has spent a significant portion of his life meeting the spiritual needs of faculty is actually a pretty good reference source for Faculty Commons.--Sixtrojans (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It is written in the first person by Walkup. First person alumni updates are the opinions of that alumni, not of the department. As to your vacuous WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS accusation, read WP:PARITY. Sixtrojans, I've noticed that you are doing everything you can to whitewash this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF--Sixtrojans (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:POT -- if you don't want your white-washing pointed out then, kindly stop making off-topic & inaccurate statements impugning my conduct on other articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize how racially offensive that is? Is there something wrong with being black?--Sixtrojans (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

[Refactored: as off-topic to improving the article. Complaints about WP:POT belong only in WT:Don't call the kettle black, WP:MFD (if they are seeking to have that essay deleted) or the user's own talk page. Complaints about WP:AGF from somebody who makes an accusation of being "racially offensive" on the basis of simply citing that essay will be ignored (except for the slight sound of sniggering). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ]

Yes, I'm aware of the history of that phrase -- it originated during a time period when having dark skin was also an insult. Using that phrase and the phrase "white-washing" together was poor judgment on your part, as well as calling me "utterly stupid." You've crossed a line of inappropriateness that should not be crossed.--Sixtrojans (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks, I don't want to get in the middle of anyone's personal discussion, but how about we all take a deep breath and a step back? I understand how both phrases could be offensive to some, and I also understand how others might use them without any intent to offend, but this isn't really the place to debate that. Let's get back to the subject at hand, ok? And if there's any way I can help (other than butting out, which I'm already pretty sure you'd prefer!), feel free to let me know. Thanks. :) -- edi(talk) 05:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[Refactored: per above Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ]

I am aware of the Don Quixote connection, which can also be translated "the pot said to the kettle, get away from you black face." And yes, you also inferred that I was utterly stupid.--Sixtrojans (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[Refactored: per above Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ]

I'm glad we finally agree that the Wikipedia essay you introduced is off-topic. If you would kindly engage me in civil conversation, perhaps we could make some progress.--Sixtrojans (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Change If the organization has changed its name that I guess the article title will have to change sooner or later. It might as well be now, with a redirect from the old name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Given that no third-party source giving them significant coverage calls them this, and they are still frequently using the old name (both on their website & for their email address domain-name), "later" would lead to a lot less confusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Web site says Faculty Commons all over it. The only remnant of CLM is the domain name, which is somewhat understandable as it can take quite a bit of work to switch to a new domain name. I also added a link today to the industry watchdog group MinistryWatch.org which calls them Faculty Commons.--Sixtrojans (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. See, for example, Chapter 17 Christian Leadership Ministries Involvement Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you never heard of out of date Web content? How can you possibly insist that they have not changed their name? [2]--Sixtrojans (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't insist that -- I've only insisted that nobody noticed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Change --Sixtrojans (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reluctant) change -- Clearly the organization has changed its name, even if it's still in the process of changing all of its documentation, and even if others haven't gotten the news yet. Wikipedia should be as accurate and up to date as possible, so I feel that the name needs to change. However, I agree that the new name is confusing on a number of levels, so if/when the change occurs we definitely need a redirect from the current name, AND the article needs to start with something along the lines of "Faculty Commons (known as Christian Leadership Ministries prior to 2007) is the faculty-aimed branch of Campus Crusade for Christ." I know it's not 100% aligned with WP:MOS, but according to WP:LEAD it's ok to bold synonyms in the first sentence and I think this comes pretty close to that. Does this sound reasonable anywhere outside of my head? -- -- edi(talk) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Change - to Faculty Commons. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Change - with a redirect. Ltwin (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Change - with a redirect. It seems to me that, in general, an active organization is generally best known by its current name, at least to non-members of the group, who are most likely to be seeking the information the article presents. I can't see any reason to keep the article under the old name, unless the group stops operating so quickly that it remains in the future best known by its older name. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Competing articulations of CLM mission

I would note that Forrest & Gross is (i) more scholarly than MinistryWatch, (ii) gives the topic far more in-depth coverage (making it better able to form an expert opinion) & (iii) cites the description as an explicit quote to CLM's self-description. MW's on the other hand is a short, unsourced, phrase as a minor aside to its description of CCC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Forrest & Gross was written in 2004 (not 2204 like you put in the article -- that's 200 years in the future). The organization changed its name in 2007 to Faculty Commons which you can clearly read about at [[3]]. I doubt Forrest & Gross could have possibly called them by today's name in their 2004 book. --Sixtrojans (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Already corrected. However F&G is by far the most extensive third party source we have on the subject, and we still have no non-trivial third party mention of them by any other name. The renamed themselves, but nobody noticed -- or they haven't done anything noticable since. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We clearly have a difference of opinion. You refuse to recognize any source I cite and strip them out of the article because you call them trivial. This is turning into a non-productive edit war. I have a track record of being pretty fair with subject matters that interest me, letting sourced statements that I don't like remain in an article (even in this one). I'd like to ask for the same courtesy. MinistryWatch is an important watchdog group that holds evangelical organizations accountable financially. There ought to be room in this article for them to be sourced, and for other editors with a variety of perspectives to contribute. Can we please try to work together, and have some give and take on this? --Sixtrojans (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You have ubiquitously cited sources that either (i) aren't third-party or (ii) don't give non-trivial mention. Further none of the mentions are for activities that weren't already active under the CLM name. WM gives CLM only trivial coverage as a minor adjunct of CCC. Per your "track record": (i) you repeatedly attempted to minimalise their unconstitutional and explicitly eliminationist ("Why We Cannot Let You Have Your God") activities at USAFA, (ii) you repeatedly misrepresented Walkup's explicitly first-person account as third party. If you want some "courtesy", then I'd suggest that you stop being so tendentious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)