Talk:Union Theological College

---

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Union College.png

Image:Union College.png 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Union Theological College. 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/20081119145202/http://www.presbyterianireland.org/news/news2003/news0468.html to http://www.presbyterianireland.org/news/news2003/news0468.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119145202/http://www.presbyterianireland.org/news/news2003/news0468.html to http://www.presbyterianireland.org/news/news2003/news0468.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Dr Martyn Cowan addressing the Cross of Saint Patrick Loyal Orange Lodge - reduced size and cropped.gif

This animated gif has been repeatedly added and removed, without any discussion.

I agree with the edit summary of the latest removal This image is irrelevant to an article on the theological college by user:ReformedTexan.

It has been suggested that there may be copyvio issue with this image. If it is a copyvio then it should actually be deleted from Wikipedia, but regardless of the license status, it is not an appropriate addition to this article. We don't add images of faculty to school articles, and even worse, this is actually a video clip, and its not even of school event. Meters (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Meters, your comments about images and videos here makes me wonder about the use of other images ont he article. There are currently three gifs of events run by an external organisation (the Orange Order) on college premises. They are not college events and yet make up nearly have the imagery in the article. Does that seem appropriate? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Meters that if there is a copyvio issue with this image, then its removal seems entirely appropriate on this basis alone. I see that user:ReformedTexan has described the image as being taken from a Facebook page in repeated edits (on 25 October 2021 and on 27 October 2021) but the source of the particular image on Facebook does not appear to be quite so obvious to various editors, so perhaps it might be helpful in the first instance if this could be shown here. I trust that doing so should be fairly straightforward, unless the image might have been subsequently removed from Facebook, in which case reference could instead be made to when the relevant URL was last accessed.

Meanwhile, on the separate point of whether any images of faculty are irrelevant to school articles, there do appear to be a few counterexamples elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as the images of faculty in the article on Banaras Hindu University [1] or those at the University of Waterloo [2] and one of their faculty [3] apparently playing with a toy robot in a garden. Maybe the difference is whether the number of faculty members at larger schools would preclude a fair pictorial representation without unduly cluttering the page. Or maybe the pertinent difference is whether such faculty members are considered as “notable people”, the criterion for which may be debatable but appears to at least be consistent with either inclusion of separate Wikipedia entries for such individuals or unambiguous reference to their names in mainstream media. Is there any recognized guidance in this regard?

Alias the Jester (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not simply a case of adding an image of a notable faculty member to a notable faculty section. This is a video file of a faculty member at a non-school event. If the intent is to simply add an image of the faculty member then it should be a simple image. As it is it is promoting the non-school event.

The notable faculty list is full of members who do not have Wikipedia articles to show their notability. I will remove them. Meters (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Meters, the edits you have made to the Notable Former Faculty section seem entirely appropriate to me. However, I am not sure what others might make of the removal of all entries for any current faculty who do not yet happen to have a Wikipedia article, especially since at least one of whom certainly seems to have a more impressive academic publication record meriting a Festschrift. Let’s wait and see what others think.

Alias the Jester (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That was a list of every faculty member. We don't do that. Meters (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it still the case that listing every member of faculty is inappropriate? If so, you might want to check the flurry of edits of late by Ardenssedvirens Sola Reformanda (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realise there was an issue with listing all the faculty. I had assumed that with a small faculty it wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps it would be worth having the three professors and one senior lecturer, two of whom would deserve to be listed anyway as notable faculty, while the other two are the principal and vice-principal. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, though I then wonder if the Faculty subheading “Systematic Theology and Church History” should therefore now be changed to “Notable Current Faculty” - what do you think? Otherwise I wonder if someone who just glances at the heading titles could be left with the mistaken impression that there is now only one department.

Alias the Jester (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Meters (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

University Status Query

I notice that this college is listed at the bottom of the page as a university in both the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland specifically, yet on looking at the latter it is described therein as one of the "QUB Centres". Is this really accurate now in light of content in the rest of the article regarding cessation of the connection with Queen's University Belfast? If it is not currently accurate, should the categories be updated to reflect the current status? Curious critters (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. Those templates look rather out of date generally: I think none of the QUB Centres are now affiliated - and some no longer exist - so I've removed them from the template. Robminchin (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"contrary to central tenets in the Westminster Confession of Faith"

@Alias the Jester: As it currently stands, this looks like WP:OR in that it concludes that the action of the college is contrary to the WCF without a source explicitly stating this conclusion ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" -- WP:SYNTHESIS). This needs a citation to a reliable source that reaches this conclusion. If it is an opinion that is not universally held, then we also need to be careful to maintain WP:NPOV. Robminchin (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Robminchin. My original wording in this regard was “reflecting central tenets in the Westminster Confession of Faith” (Revision as of 23:20, 8 February 2022). This was then changed by Curious critters to indicate an apparent contradiction, which I concede. I see that Curious critters has also added citations in the meantime. The outstanding question seems to be whether the Westminster Confession of Faith maintains “an opinion that is not universally held”. I think it is pretty clear that many of the opinions therein are far from universally held, and it could also be argued that it reaches or implies a fair few conclusions that are not explicitly stated by any other source. If I understand things correctly, the question therefore seems to be whether the Westminster Confession of Faith itself looks like WP:SYNTHESIS. Is this the case?

Alias the Jester (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alias the Jester, the issue is whether we have a source that actually reaches the conclusion that the college is acting in contradiction to the WCF. As editors, if we make this determination ourselves then this is "Original Research", which Wikipedia doesn't allow. If an editor has looked at the WCF and has looked at the college's statement on its partnership with St Mary's and has put these together to reach the conclusion that college is acting contrary to the WCF - which is what it looks like from the references currently cited - then this is "Synthesis" (which is a category of Original Research).

Whether the WCF itself is universally held isn't important, it's whether the opinion that the college is acting contrary to it is generally held that I was referring to - if there's an article saying that somebody said they were acting contrary to it but the college denied this (which I suspect they would), then Wikipedia would need to reflect that there was dispute rather than taking a side.

However, the most important thing is to find a reliable source that contains this conclusion, whether disputed or not. I couldn't find one on the internet, but it's quite possible that there's something not available online or that I didn't turn up. Robminchin (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Just saw the revised version on the page, which goes a long way towards addressing these concerns and does indeed cite a "Degrees from Rome" article opposing the move. This looks a lot better now! I think one thing that still needs addressing is that it looks from the source cited that the General Assembly didn't meet (and therefore didn't discuss the college's plans) because of COVID, not because of expected opposition. Robminchin (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robminchin, I have made some further edits that should hopefully address outstanding issues in other changes made by Curious critters. Although the General Assembly didn't meet in person in 2020 because of COVID as you indicate, there does not necessarily seem to be a clear reason why its business could not have been otherwise conducted online with the usual number of participants, as with other church business that year, nor is it clear why the matter was not instead discussed when the General Assembly subsequently met in person in 2021. So, there possibly may have been mixed motives behind leaving such decisions to a rather small and select group. Nevertheless, the revision I have now made should hopefully avoid causal inferences either way.

Alias the Jester (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

Speaking of NPOV, could we review the wording "thereby exemplifying psychological projection as both scapegoating and victim blaming"? ("eliciting accusations of..." would be far better) Other parts of that section also seem charged, "whose teaching demonstrably inspired previous students (as opposed to something like "prior to this, he was well-regarded by students", there is clear displeasure about the decision conveyed that should not be) was then sacked after 22 years of service, ostensibly (casting doubt on the statement without anything to back it up) as his participation in a radio interview was construed as "gross misconduct"" demonstrates a clear bias to the accused. --Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 21:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings Caliburn, I note that you have queried a few different of sections of text, so perhaps these are best discussed separately.

Firstly, regarding the statement "thereby exemplifying psychological projection as both scapegoating and victim blaming”, you might like to note that similar wording of "seemingly exemplifying psychological projection as both scapegoating and victim blaming" was previously removed anonymously by 2.103.88.128 on 15 January 2022, who regarded such previous wording as a speculative comment. I myself then rephrased such previously removed wording to yield the current form, as I thought that the cautious nature of the original wording now appeared unwarranted, unless one could conversely demonstrate the absence of scapegoating and victim blaming on the basis of overwhelmingly contrary evidence to that which was already in the public domain as cited in the section concerned. I see that this section of text was later removed without apparent explanation by 91.110.9.8 on 7 February 2022 but then promptly restored by Meters less than ten minutes later and left unchanged thereafter. So, there does not seem to have been significant dispute about the veracity of the statement itself in its current form, other than its attempted anonymous removal with minimal explanation. Regarding your suggested alternative wording of "eliciting accusations of…", I think this would be fine if you could provide a suitable reference for any such accusations.

Secondly, regarding the statement "whose teaching demonstrably inspired previous students", if you look at the associated reference you will see the following comments therein, which Rlink2 had subsequently attempted to archive on 26 February 2022 for the benefit of future verifiability:

Ann Robinson-Smith (Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 11:42)

He was my favourite lecturer at Union Theological College and really inspired me to take an interest in theological history. My A level students make fun of me when we come across a topic that he taught me as I get so animated and passionate.

I must say that I really enjoyed my Church History modules.Having listened to these videos outlining the current modules with the field trips and variety I would love to studying again.

If you get a chance to take a module with Prof Kirkpatrick jump at the chance.

Union Theological College, Belfast (Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 11:44)

Thanks so much for the feedback, Ann. You are certainly not the first or the last student the Prof has inspired. We're glad to hear that you're doing so well. ^^ CW

So, although it would also appear to be accurate to say that "he was well-regarded by students” (as you yourself suggest), the particular word inspired is arguably more faithful to the original wording of the online conversation cited as a source and the testimony provided at the time both by a former student and by responsible personnel at Union Theological College.

Lastly, with regard to the word ostensibly, I note that you suggest that this casts doubt on the associated statement but you do not seem to discern anything therein to back this up. I think one merely needs to read on to see how there seems to be a considerable body of contrary evidence that might provide ample reason to doubt the propriety of the associated accusation. However, if you can provide alternative arguments (with reference to appropriately reliable sources) to demonstrate how the accusation of "gross misconduct" might instead be beyond reasonable doubt, then please do so. It is only by working together like this that we can improve such articles.

Curious critters (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging honestly with this point. But I don't feel this adequately addresses my concerns and I still believe that this article is presenting a view perhaps unduly sympathetic to this professor. I hope this does not come across as an attack in any way.

Is there any source that specifically charges this body with scapegoating or victim blaming? They would be useful to cite here, and as I say we could then reframe that sentence as "this was met with accusations of scapegoating or victim blaming". I don't understand why the response was projection, and "victim blaming" presumes that the professor is indeed a victim, which is not clear. So this sentence seems more like an opinion than a presentation of fact.

My issue is with the placement of that particular part, not the wording of the part per se. It reads to me similar to "we're going to outline a controversy this person was caught up in, but a lot of people think he's a nice guy, so take this all with a grain of salt". I don't think Wikipedia should be taking that sort of position, you're setting up a sympathetic viewpoint towards this person from the get-go. The mitigation, that he was well-liked, should be moved to after outlining the controversy. If the general feeling is of sympathy to this professor, we should be explaining that, and citing instances of that, rather than displaying that sympathy ourselves, since that oversteps the mark with NPOV. I have no issue with the word "inspired" in particular. I hope I am not overanalysing this, but it really stood out to me when I was reading the article casually.

I might be misunderstanding the word "ostensibly", but my understanding of the word is "something that appears to be the case, but some doubt is displayed". Wiktionary seems to offer a definition to that effect. I don't think it should be on other people to justify why "ostensibly" shouldn't be used, to me it seems inherently charged. It should be framed more as "the official reason given was this, however commentators speculated that it might have been because [...]". Then it's no longer Wikipedia making these judgements or casting this doubt, but is now the sources in question. Doing otherwise seems to overstep Wikipedia's position as a tertiary source. The intention should be to outline viewpoints with appropriate citations, rather than trying to inject them as fact into the article.

Please do let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick here. --Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 20:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I'm a bit rusty with exact policy pages, but WP:SYNTHESIS seems relevant here also. --Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 20:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings Caliburn, thanks for your response.

According to the associated Wikipedia article that is cross-referenced in this article, "Victim blaming occurs when the victim of … any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them". The professor was a victim insofar as he claimed to have experienced "unfair dismissal, discrimination and harassment" which had "had taken a heavy personal toll on him", and he was then blamed by the Council for Training in Ministry for the ensuing suspension of links between Queen's University and Union Theological College, despite all available evidence appearing to indicate that this split was prompted not by any of his comments on the radio but rather by his subsequent suspension. It was also claimed that he had failed to gain the church's prior approval for taking part in a radio discussion, though no documented evidence has been presented to date to suggest that obtaining such permission to speak was ever a prior requirement for any members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland or academics at the college. Similarly, according to the associated Wikipedia article that is cross-referenced in this article, "Scapegoating is the practice of singling out a person or group for unmerited blame and consequent negative treatment." In what way might this be an inappropriate description for the treatment of the professor on the basis of available evidence? The Wikipedia article on scapegoating describes this as an example of psychological projection, and the Wikipedia article on psychological projection in turn describes victim blaming as another practical example of this (both of which clearly have common elements of blaming others and treating others as victims in some way). I am therefore not sure how there is any more synthesis in the description here than there might be in the other Wikipedia articles that similarly reference each other. Whilst the clause "thereby exemplifying psychological projection as both scapegoating and victim blaming" could be removed (as others previously attempted to do anonymously), it is not clear to me how doing so would significantly alter any perceived reputations of those under discussion, especially if this might now just leave the seemingly less charitable alternative accusation of "semi-secret plotting".

As regards the perception that the discussion appears like "we're going to outline a controversy this person was caught up in, but a lot of people think he's a nice guy, so take this all with a grain of salt", how might that compare to current discussion of Vladimir Putin's ongoing military operations in Ukraine in most of the global media compared to the discussion or reporting of this that is currently permissible in Russia? Of course, the relevant abuses concerned are on a different scale entirely, though so are the respective powers of the authorities concerned. Nevertheless, there certainly appear to be common themes of freedom of speech and which alternative narratives are considered permissible by governing authorities.

As regards whether the word "ostensibly" might be perceived as inherently charged by some who are more sensitive for whatever reason (I have to admit that this particular sort of nuance eludes me), it is probably worth pointing out how this single word at least affords the advantage of greater brevity than alternative wording along the lines you have suggested. After all, is greater neutrality really achieved by using what effectively approaches something more like the definition of a word in place of using the single word itself? Mindful of your understanding of the word as "something that appears to be the case, but some doubt is displayed”, perhaps reference should be made to how the professor himself thought that the real reasons for his dismissal were other than those explicitly stated. I will therefore add this to the relevant section of this article. As for the placement of that particular part that describes how the professor’s teaching "demonstrably inspired previous students", this simply reflects the chronological order of the matters described. To describe events chronologically insofar as possible is surely more neutral than to impose alternative frameworks.

In the face of what appears to be overwhelmingly negative coverage in the mainstream media of the authorities responsible for dismissal of the professor, it is hard for me to see how appropriately representative citation of this could paint a different picture. Indeed, some coverage of the relevant controversy in the mainstream press has gone much further than the articles currently cited as sources, including references to "the boorish, guldering bigots of the Save Ulster from Sodomy era" and how "the 21st century church … has chosen to march away into the dark" as it is "dominated by an influential rump of male conservatives who are hung up about homosexuality, as well as suspicious and hostile". If the ensuing descriptions do not appear to be neutral, it is probably because the cited reporting itself overwhelmingly points in a particular direction, even without including more colorfully worded examples such as that just mentioned. Meanwhile, the alternative narrative by the Council for Training in Ministry and the Union Theological College Management Committee (which basically says that they didn't dismiss the professor, it was simply that their own procedures were magically followed without anyone responsible actually being involved) must surely sound somewhat untenable upon neutral examination. Again, there arguably may be some limited parallels here with potentially perceived non-neutrality in current descriptions of Vladimir Putin's military operations in Ukraine. However, if you have other suggestions as to how this could be expressed differently, please let me know. Perhaps there are other reliable sources that I (or other editors) have not yet come across which could be cited to provide more counterbalance and hence greater perceived neutrality.

Curious critters (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

There is a lot of loaded language in this article, many paragraphs about controversies are unbalanced in a very critical direction, and many references are made to news articles rather than to material published by the college itself or the QAA. I attempted to make changes to provide more neutral language and provide better citations but someone made an account an hour ago purely for the purpose of reverting those changes. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings Ardenssedvirens, thanks for your efforts to provide some counterbalancing remarks. This is just the sort of thing that I had been looking for. Like the other editor you mention, it looks like your account was also only born yesterday but you have evidently been very busy in a short space of time. Might I suggest that you focus primarily in the first instance on adding suitable material that you are aware of for which authoritative references are available, rather than just removing material that others have sourced and which they seemed to have referenced appropriately? Otherwise a number of your comments associated with edits so far that you might suggest a possible conflict of interest in relation to what has been reported in various media, which might in turn be perceived as potentially compromising neutrality. For example, you seem to have especially objected to what you described as "unsubstantiated claims about the feelings of students" (19:31, 15 March 2022) even though these seem to have been personally attested by a longstanding former academic at the college and were accordingly then reported in the mainstream media. If a student might have felt intimidated as described, then what publicly available evidence would you otherwise expect to see regarding this? Or are only positive feelings of students admissible and how are these selected?

Curious critters (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Curious critters, I did add a lot of material with references, but it was removed. I referred extensively to statements by the church to provide balance, material on the college website about how the courses work, and quotes from QAA that provided more objective assessments of the college than editorialised comments from journalists. However these were all removed yesyerday by @Gibbertiflibbet – an account created just before the deletion and which has taken no other action.

The comment about feelings of students I referred to was hearsay by a recently-sacked employee who was taking the college to an employment tribunal. That doesn't seem to be reliable evidence. The Queen's Strategic Review and the QAA reports would seem to me to be more objective sources and they speak positively about the experience of students in the college. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings again, Ardenssedvirens. I am impressed at your level of industry on this page. It looks like you have been working on this full-time for two days in a row, seemingly pausing only for the Saint Patrick's day holiday. This seems remarkably professional for such a new account. I hope you are enjoying the holiday.

I note that you have added in the claim that the former professor of church history had "failed to gain the church's approval for taking part" in a radio interview. Can you provide a reference to any documented evidence that obtaining such permission to speak was ever a prior requirement for any members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland or academics at the college? I have been unable to find this so far and I think this would be important to add if it is contended that this was grounds for his dismissal, especially if the Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland denied that ministers were being silenced. For example, if there was no general rule that limited freedom of speech in this way, then why was this mentioned as grounds for his dismissal? On the other hand, was it only the former professor who was told that he had to request permission to speak in this way? If so, that might seem relevant to his claims to have experienced "unfair dismissal, discrimination and harassment".

Can you also explain why the testimony of a recently-sacked employee should not be taken as reliable evidence? My concern is that if some students felt intimidated or discriminated against (as claimed not only by a longstanding former employee but also by a student newspaper ), then these students would not necessarily have been the most likely to raise their concerns identifiably or have been invited to participate is a survey by the QAA, would they? So, many students were clearly happy as you point out, but that does not necessarily negate claims that a minority were not, does it? The concerns of a minority may still be relevant if they felt discriminated against. Curious critters (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Curious critters (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Curious critters can I also complement you on your dedication, spending the entire history of your account dealing with UTC and St. MAry's, contributing on 16 days in the last 5 weeks. I've a long way to go to match your contributions, but I applaud you for your commitment.

Regarding failure to gain permission to speak, that is factually what he was disciplined for, so I'm simply reporting what the church said. If you're going to have a section on an employee being dismissed then an essential part of that would be the employer's stated reasons for the dismissal. It's not really our place to debate whether those reasons stand up to scrutiny or not. It would of course be appropriate to include Laurence Kirkpatrick's defence of his position and if the outcome of the employment tribunal becomes public then it would be appropriate to include that.

Regarding the reliability fo testimony, it's hard to believe that you can't see the issue of a recently sacked employee who is taking their employer to court suddenly making unverifiable claims about unidentified individuals. That's classic hearsay with a motive for hurting his employer. It's very flimsy evidence and for balance should at the very least should be accompanied by the much stronger evidence of student satisfaction in the Queen's Strategic Review and the QAA report, both of which have better methodology for ascertaining student views and are more objective. I'm not arguing here about whether minority concerns are important, I'm questioning the reliability of claims and the balacne of what claims are presented in the article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings Ardenssedvirens, it is one interpretation to see claims about unidentified individuals as hearsay, but I do not think that is the only potentially valid interpretation. An equally valid interpretation would be unwillingness to breach confidentiality by personally identifying those who had already felt vulnerable. The Queen's Strategic Review that you mention seems to be a much older one than the one that finalized the divorce between the college and the university, so appealing to an older document may not be quite so pertinent to the later claims of discrimination. And how are students selected to participate in contibuting towards the QAA report? If evidence of student satisfaction really is much stronger in the Queen's Strategic Review and the QAA report, then why did this not get similar coverage in any of the mainstream media? Is that part of some kind of media conspiracy? Curious critters (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Curious critters. If someone reports the words of another party without evidence to verify those words then by definition that it hearsay. It may be that it's a legitimate statement and that he has good reasons for not breaching confidentiality, but that doesn't change the fact that it is hearsay.

The Queen's Strategic Review is date June 2016 and Laurence Kirkpatrick was interviewed in June 2018. I wouldn't describe a 24 month difference 'much older,. especially in the context of Mr Kirkpatrick's 22 year teaching career in Union. I'm not sure why you're asking why the media chooses to report some things and not others. I'm not in a position to answer that and it's not really relevant to the article. Whatever is in the article should be factual and balanced. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Greeting Ardenssedvirens, it was not merely the comments by the former professor that I was referring to but also those by the student newspaper. If two independent sources raise similar concerns at around the same time, then that may be more than mere hearsay. With student satisfaction in mind, it might also be relevant to bear in mind the declining student numbers over latter years. A product might not necessarily be deemed to be popular simply because of the loyalty of a declining number of customers. Curious critters (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Curious critters, the student newspaper had an anonymous source. That's also hearsay. Two cases of hearsay is still hearsay. I'm not sure what declining numbers have to do with the treatment of students who are there or why you're now raising the issue of popularity, which isn't what we're talking about. The article already notes declining numbers and I haven't objected to that being factually reported. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Orange Order

Is the weight given to the Orange Order justified, as a mere external organisation that has made use of the premises on a couple of occasions?

The Order’s use of the college is listed under Culture and Controversy, but no evidence of this being considered controversial by anyone is supplied.

The entire college article has 8 images/gifs, 3 of which are gifs about the Order. This seems disproportionate.

A comparison is made to churches being in lockdown while an Order service was filmed in the college but there is no evidence that the order was able to do anything other than what churches were doing i.e. a small number of people filming a service with the congregation not present. This gives a misleading impression.

There is a comparison with Catholic organisations not using the premises but it is unknown if they have requested to use the presides so the comparison is again misleading and reads more like a criticism of Reformed theology than an objective description of what the college does.

The whole section reads less like an objective description of controversy and more like an editorial critical of the Orange Order, the College, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings Ardenssedvirens, thanks for your contribution. It sounds like you have some access to information that is not otherwise publicly available, at least not to my knowledge. I notice that you referred to "a purely commercial hire of premises" (23:39, 15 March 2022). Can you provide an authoritative reference for this or at least indicate how you became aware of this particular arrangement? You also referred to "misleading language that suggested without evidence that the service was conducted in a manner different to churches in lockdown". Can you clarify how the language implied this? Perhaps you are more sensitive to something that currently eludes me. If you could provide comparable examples of churches in the vicinity who hosted the Orange Order at around the same time, that might be helpful in order to better understand this. Regarding what you describe as disproportionate representation of images, what additional images would you like to see and can you provide these? Or if you were to choose just a couple of images as appropriately representative of the Orange Order's use of the college premises, which would you prefer? Curious critters (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, @Curious critters.

Regarding hire of premises, when an outside body makes use of premises, I would have thought the default neutral assumption would be that it is a purely commercial arrangement unless evidence to the contrary is supplied. There is nothing showing that UTC endorsed or promoted the event or that faculty or students took part or were otherwise present. I'd be happy to simply say that 'the Orange Order were permitted to make use of the premises' if you think that is more neutral – it doesn't imply any particular relationship and simply states the known facts.

Regarding language about services, there was a sentence about the Orange Order services taking place while churches were closing due to Covid. It's not clear that the relevance of churches is to a section on the Orange Order using college premises unless the purpose is to make a comparison of some sort. My interpretation of it was that that churches weren't allowed to have in person services and if this was a comparison then the implication was that the Orange Order were being permitted to do something churches weren't, so I think there needs to be wording to make it clear that that there's no evidence the Orange Order were given special dispensation to do something different. Or else just remove the reerence to churches as irrelevant. If you think it should stay then it would help to explain what relevance you think it has.

Regarding images, I wasn't suggesting adding more images. Three images for one part of one section of the article seems excessive. I would reduce it to one. I don't have a preference which. The caption should also make it clear that the images are of an outside organisation using college premises, not images of an event run by the college. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings again, Ardenssedvirens. I am unsure why anyone would assume a purely commercial arrangement unless evidence to the contrary is supplied. By comparison, if somebody suddenly spent two days flat out to edit a particular Wikipedia article, should the default neutral assumption accordingly be that this was similarly motivated by a purely commercial arrangement, unless evidence to the contrary is supplied? On the other hand, what would the evidence look like if the repeated use of the college chapel by the Orange Order wasn't a purely commercial arrangement?

Regarding whether faculty or students took part or were otherwise present, how can you be sure that none of the students depicted in the images/gifs (who are thus associated with the Orange Order) are not also students at the college? I don't personally know any of the individuals depicted therein but you might know better than me in this regard. And how are you sure that none of the faculty have participated in activities with the Orange Order?

As regards the other images that you have removed, two ministers were depicted who are grand chaplains of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. In particular, Rev. Alistair Smyth is the minister of Carryduff Presbyterian Church, and as he is a minister of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, I would therefore assume that he is an alumnus of Union Theological College. Do you know of any evidence to the contrary? If not, why remove an image of a former student of the college? Curious critters (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective on things @Curious critters. Regarding commercial arrangements, it's common practice for universities and colleges to hire out their premises when students aren't present. That doesn't mean endorsement of the group doing the hiring. The Presbyterian Church also does a lot of hiring out of premises – there are guidelines for congregations on how to do that and Assembly Buildings in Belfast advertises itself as a conference venue. I don't know why you would assume that the Orange Order use of premises would be different to any other group hiring the premises, without evidence to show this. i don't see the basis for a comparison with me editing this page.

If you think the relationship is not a commercial one then you should provide evidence for that, such as a statement by the college or the order that the College endorses the events, that staff or students are participating, or that people are being encouraged to go.

You seem to have the burden of proof the wrong way round in a lot of cases, where you want it to be proven that people don't have a connection with the college, rather than having to prove there is a connection. You're speculating and then insisting that that speculation be part of the basis for the article on the college unless your speculation can be disproven. But that's not how things work. You need evidence to put something into an article; you don't put things in and then demand evidence to the contrary before they can be removed. You can factually state that the Orange Order were held some events on the premises of the college. You can't say or imply that they were endorsed or supported or run by the college. Even the language of 'hosting' could be taken to imply an active involve that there is no evidence for. The article should stick to the established facts.

Regarding images, I haven't removed any. I don't recall any of the images being tagged as showing an alumnus of the college, or Alistair Smyth being listed as a notable alumnus deserving of a picture either. That could be a worthwhile section to add though – Notable alumni. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Ardenssedvirens, I may have assumed you had removed the images as you had made so many edits and I had not fully kept track of who had done what. 109.255.55.253 was similarly busy over the same couple of days but seems to have "removed content without adequately explaining why", at least according to a message left by Itcouldbepossible on this person's talk page talk page.

Otherwise, as far as burden of proof is concerned, I was simply asking what sort of evidence would satisfy this. That was why I asked what would the evidence look like if the repeated use of the college chapel by the Orange Order wasn't a purely commercial arrangement. We seem to have different default positions, mine being to assume lack of a commercial arrangement but you seem to perceive the Presbyterian Church as having more pecuniary interests than I might have assumed. Am I mistaken in this regard?

I am also interested to note that you describe hire of college premises when students aren't present. Are you saying that there were no students residing in the college when each of the Orange Lodge services took place? How do you know this?

As regards the suggestion to add a section on notable alumni, that sounds positive to me. I assume such individuals would have to already have Wikipedia articles in their name. Curious critters (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Curious critters. I'm not in a position to comment on what another user did or why they did it.

I'm not sure where you want this conversation to go. I've explained why I think the default assumption would be a purely commerical hire. You've stated that you disagree but haven't explained what you think is flawed about my reasoning or given an explanation for your assumptions. However the matter is somewhat academic since the current wording is 'the premises of Union Theological College were made available' and all I've suggested here for wording is that the Orange Order held some events on the premises of the college. You can't say or imply that they were endorsed or supported or run by the college. I did at one point in the past suggest the language of commerical hire, but I'm no longer suggesting that. A couple of days ago I did say to you 'I'd be happy to simply say that 'the Orange Order were permitted to make use of the premises' if you think that is more neutral.'

Regarding the presence of students, the service took place on 17 January 2021, which is a Sunday. There would have been no teaching happening on a Sunday so the chapel wouldn't have been in use for students. Students being resident in a separate section of the college isn't really relevant.

Regarding notable alumni, I agree that people should only listed if they have a Wikipedia article. That seems to be the standard practice.

More generally on the Orange Order, i'm wondering why the section is present at all. It doesn't seem to be standard practice on other university or college pages to mention which outside bodies make use of the premises, so there would have to be some notable reason to specifically mention the Orange Order. It's in the controversy section, but I don't see any mention of the events attracting controversy, so I'm wondering wby what definition they are controversial and worthy of mention. IF no reason can be supplied then perhaps the Orange Order section should just be removed. Either that, or there should be some mention of who considered the events to be controversial and why. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ardenssedvirens, is it standard practice for any other university to similarly host the Orange Order, whether in return for an undisclosed fee or not? Curious critters (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Curious critters, why are you singling out the Orange Order? They are an external group. It isn't standard practice to single out the use of premises by extnerla groups to the best of my knowledge. IS there some reason why the Orange Order should be treated differently to any other external group? At the moment the focus on it seems a bit arbitrary, but I'm happy to hear if there's a good reason. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be singling out the Orange Order if there was similar evidence of the Ku Klux Klan using the college. Curious critters (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any rationale for singling out the Orange Order and treating them as sufficiently notable to mention as an external group that has made use of the college premises. Nor have you provided any evidence that their use of the premises has been viewed as controversial Given that lack of evidence I'm minded to simply remove the bit about the Orange Order. It seems a bit strange to have a section on an external organisation when we don't even mention who the vice-principal and professor of systematic theology is – are the Orange Order really more relevant to the college than someone like that? I'm not seeing evidence that they are.

In a similar vein, why does the employment history of the operations manager get mentioned? He's not a notable figure mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, there's no evidence I've seen that his hiring was controversial, and the employment tribunal regarding his actions in his previous job cleared him of wrongdoing, so why does he get mentioned here?

@Meters you helpfully contributed on the issue of how much of the faculty should be listed, I wonder if you could weigh in on the two issues mentioned here, re the Orange Order and the operations manager? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have restored material regarding why the use of the premises by the Orange Order is controversial (which others keep deleting in what appears to be a futile whitewashing effort) and why this is relevant to the college. If someone wishes to make an apology for the Orange Order, they are welcome to try to do so.

Most of the figures associated with the history of the college are otherwise as unremarkable in global terms as the operations manager and therefore have no Wikipedia entries but coverage in multiple news sources qualifies as notability.

As for the vice-principal and professor of systematic theology, what is remarkable about these people and what relevance do they have to the Orange Order? Notabigot (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Notabigot I don’t see any reference to controversy I can see information about the Orange Order which presumably you deem controversial but that’s not the same as there being a controversy to report. This isn’t your personal blog to explain why you don’t like the Orange Order. This is an article about Union College, not the Orange Order, so asking what members of the faculty have to do with the Orange Order is rather irrelevant I’m going to delete the Orange Order section since it’s presence here seems to be down purely to personal dislike of the Order rather than because there’s any controversy to report.

Similarly I’ll delete the bit about the operations manager. News reports about him being cleared by an employment tribunal in his previous job does not qualify as controversy in his current job. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It must be controversial if you are so keen to delete this. I am interested to note above that you do not exclude the possibility that students may have been resident in the college when the Orange Lodges were using the building. The Wikipedia article on the Orange Order describes it as supremacist. Is it appropriate for such an organisation to be invited into a student residence, even assuming that students were not sleeping in the actual chapel? Notabigot (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thinking that something isn’t relevant and shouldn’t be included is not evidence that it is worth including. That’s illogical. You clearly don’t like the Orange Order. I don’t like them either. That doesn’t mean that there was any controversy about them using the premises. I’ve repeatedly asked for evidence that there was controversy but none has been supplied. Students being resident in another part of the premises doesn’t mean that an external organisation using other parts of the premises is controversial.. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ardenssedvirens, I am just wondering how you can be sure that students were resident in another part of the premises on each occasion. This does not seem to be mentioned in any of the sources cited as far as I am aware. Can you please clarify this? Alias the Jester (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there evidence that the Orange Order is controversial? Plenty. Is there evidence that the college was repeatedly used by the Orange Order? Yes, multiple independent and reliable sources. Is there evidence that either the Presbyterian Church in Ireland or Union Theological College sought to publicise use of the college by the Orange Order in the same way that the "On These Steps" event was publicised? Not that I am aware of, and I am sure you would agree that unwillingness to court controversy does not make something any less controversial. Or do you think use of the college by the Orange Order was entirely appropriate, especially if an organisation described as supremacist was invited into a building where students (allegedly of all backgrounds) resided? Notabigot (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

To date you have provided no evidence that there was any controversy around the Orange Order use of premises. You haven’t shown that the Order have been promoted in any way by the college. You haven’t given a valid reason to include them in the article. I think we’ll need third party involvement here to resolve this since you’re insistent in repeatedly inserting material without a justification for it. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ardenssedvirens. If the college repeatedly entertained the Orange Order, then it was helping to promote the Orange Order, especially if the Orange Order claimed to have a global audience for its video recording of the first service (albeit presumably a rather selective audience nonetheless) and if the college was the focal point for a parade for the second service. If the college hired out the premises to different Orange Lodges, then the college is also profiting from the Orange Order. Perhaps it might be helpful if you could now try to answer the question repeatedly asked by Notabigot regarding whether use of a college by a controversial organisation that has already been described as supremacist was invited into a building where students from different backgrounds may have concurrently resided. This seems pertinent to whether such use of the premises was irrelevant or not to an article on the college, as you clearly contend. If you don't like the Orange Order as you claim, do you simply want to see this removed because you are instead somehow embarrassed by any association of the Orange Order with the college? Some clarity on this might be helpful. Sola Reformanda (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I do my know what you mean by the college entertaining the Orange Order. They let them use the premises. Allowing a group to use premises does not equal endorsement. I’ve repeatedly asked for evidence that this use was in any way controversial. Clearly people on here don’t like it but there is no indication that staff, students, faculty, the church, or the media regarded it as controversial. That is what matters, not the personal opinions of people on here. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

How were staff, students, faculty, the church, or the media concurrently made aware of the use of college premises by the Orange Order? This seems pertinent insofar as the Orange Order has been characterised by an academic authority as "a society with secrets" Notabigot (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Notabigot I'm not sure what the relevance of the question is. If you're aware of some information and can explain how it has a bearing on the matter then I'm happy to listen. As it stands though there is still no evidence of there being any controversy. You might speculate that there would have been controversy if there had been greater awareness, but that's your personal opinion, not something that should be in the article and not a justification for putting the Orange Order into the article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Curious critters and @Notabigot I’ve opened a dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Union Theological College Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Who put the description of the appointment and employment history of the operations manager into the Controversies section anyway? Last time I looked at this article, I recall that this was in the History section instead. Then it was in a new section entitled "Recent Developments". Looking back, I see the following:

17:18, 16 March 2022‎ Ardenssedvirens talk contribs‎ 50,554 bytes +602‎ The mention of Alan McCormick seemed to be about a controversy to moved that to the controversy section with a brief mention in Other developments, directing the reader towards the Controversy section. Also made some minor edits to tidy up grammar and formatting.

So, is there a double standard here if Ardenssedvirens is now protesting about the mention of an individual in a particular section after having made the same edit himself/herself that placed mention of the individual concerned into that particular section? I think this activity demands an explanation. Alias the Jester (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The explanation is in the edit comment that you quoted. If the appointment wasn’t in for being a controversy then why was it mentioned in the article at all? He’s not a notable person and no other members of staff are mentioned. I’ve yet to hear an explanation from anyone about why he’s mentioned. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are several individuals included in the article who do not seem to either have their own Wikipedia entry nor significant media coverage (at least not which has yet been cited, so far as I am aware). For example, Bill Addley, Drew Gibson, Cecil McCullough, Gordon Campbell and Patton Taylor in the section entitled "The Union Theological College" and likewise Michael McClenahan in the "Other Developments" section. If the hire of Alan McCormick was sufficiently significant to receive coverage in an annual report posted on the college website, and if the same individual previously received press coverage that has been fairly represented, this this surely makes this individual more notable than members of faculty who have not similarly appeared in the media. As for whether his hiring was controversial, it seems that Ardenssedvirens might be somewhat conflicted on this point. None of the appointments of aforementioned non-notable faculty seem controversial, so by the same line of reasoning, why are they mentioned at all?

My other question still remains unanswered regarding what is remarkable about the vice-principal and professor of systematic theology such that they should receive similar coverage, as well as what relevance such individuals might have to the Orange Order such that you apparently think they should be mentioned in this context. Do I have to now repeat such unanswered questions on another page that you have set up instead?

I don't know much about resolution pages so it would be helpful if you could please explain what you expect me to do, kindly bearing in mind that I don't have the same time to spend on Wikipedia that you evidently do (at least based on the intensity of your edits and the speed of all your replies so far). Notabigot (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The other individuals were professors, who are the top rank of staff responsible for the main purpose of the college: teaching theology. An operations manager is not a notable member of staff. The news coverage about him predates his employment in the college, is not mentioned in the article for Belfast Bible college, his employer at the time, and doesn't seem to have attracted any renewed media attention when he was employed at union. As such I don't see how it's at all relevant to the history of the college.

I've no idea why you're asking what relevance the VP has to the Orange Order. I never claimed they have any relevance to the Orange Order. This is a page about the college, not the Orange Order.

Regarding resolution pages, the information is all on the noticeboard, so just follow the link. It's a mechanism for getting a neutral third party to help discuss a disagreement between editors. I've reported an issue and put in my side of the story. There's an opportunity for you to put in yours.

Could we please keep comments about the article rather than about editors? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to quote you as a reminder:

"It seems a bit strange to have a section on an external organisation when we don't even mention who the vice-principal and professor of systematic theology is – are the Orange Order really more relevant to the college than someone like that?" (Ardenssedvirens, 23:09, 18 March 2022, UTC)

Getting back to the subject of the Orange Order and use of the college, you also mentioned above (17:11, 18 March 2022 UTC) that the Presbyterian Church does a lot of hiring out of premises and there are guidelines for congregations on how to do that. Are there similar guidelines for the college and what reference do any of these guidelines make to hire of premises by the Orange Order? Notabigot (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Notabigot, as you can see from the quite, I said that the VP was relevant to the college and that the Orange Order are less relevant than the VP. I did not say that the VP is relevant to the Orange Order. I compare the relative relevance to the college.

I don’t know what guidelines the college might have for the premises. In the absence of such information, what is the basis for the Orange Order being relevant? Where is the evidence of controversy among staff, students, faculty, the church, or the media? I have repeatedly asked and have yet to get an answer. I’m trying to be constructive here and give you a chance to make the case for including the Orange Order, but you’re not providing any evidence. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that I had already addressed your query satisfactorily at 09:45 UTC on 19 March 2022. You seem to be looking for evidence of various groups making an extraordinary outcry over specific events of which they were seemingly unaware at the time. I am not persuaded that this is a necessary criterion for something being a controversy.  According to Benford's law of controversy, the less factual information that is available on a topic, the more controversy can arise around that topic – and the more facts are available, the less controversy can arise. Therefore the apparent absence to date of evidence that staff, students, faculty, the church, or the media were made aware of this at the time only contributes towards the current controversy.

Meanwhile, the greatest relevance of the Orange Order to the college is probably the apparent confluence between criteria for membership of the former and subscription to particular viewpoints required of professors at the latter.

So, are the vice-principal and professor of systematic theology one and the same person? If you think this person deserves a separate section, then please create this. Notabigot (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I might make a few intriguing observations here, for which some clarification might be helpful for the potential avoidance of doubt. Ardenssedvirens seems to have suggested that the vice-principal and professor of systematic theology in particular should be viewed as more relevant to the college than the Orange Order (23:09, 18 March 2022 and 21:38, 19 March 2022), further describing such a person as "the top rank of staff responsible for the main purpose of the college" (18:52, 19 March 2022). When suggestions were later made about who was responsible for certain edits, Ardenssedvirens complained about "an awful lot of comments" being made about this individual that were "either personal or inaccurate", imploring others "to keep discussion factual and about the article" (19:00, 19 March 2022). However, there seemed to be more questions raised by Notabigot about the reason for bringing up the notability of the vice-principal and professor of systematic theology in the context of a discussion about the Orange Order (e.g. 05:49, 19 March 2022; 18:32, 19 March 2022; 21:11, 19 March 2022) than claims about the responsibility of Ardenssedvirens for particular edits, of which there was only one by Curious critters (14:34, 18 March 2022) and one by Notabigot (18:34, 19 March 2022). Two such remarks merely about edits do not seem to constitute "an awful lot of comments" that were "either personal or inaccurate". Perhaps I am misreading things here but it looks to me a bit like this could be somebody potentially masquerading as the vice-principal and professor of systematic theology. Meanwhile, there have been a few comments by Ardenssedvirens regarding how the default assumption should be a purely commercial hire (20:18, 18 March 2022) or to assume "a purely commercial arrangement unless evidence to the contrary is supplied" (09:12, 16 March 2022). Noting how Curious critters (14:23, 18 March 2022) remarked on how Ardenssedvirens had been working on editing the article on the college apparently full-time for two days in a row, and how this seemed remarkably professional for such a new account, as well as how Notabigot remarked on the intensity of edits by Ardenssedvirens (18:32, 19 March 2022), this raises possible questions regarding the motivation for such remarkable industry by a new editor who also insists repeatedly that the default assumption should be a purely commercial hire where services had been provided. Although I hope this might not necessarily imply an example of paid editing, it might be helpful to unambiguously exclude this as a possibility by means of a clear statement to this effect. Sola Reformanda (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sola Reformanda, I think you are overlooking how Ardenssedvirens also seemed to object to the suggestion of having had an "inside track" by virtue of purportedly unusual awareness of an "internal document" that had seemingly not received significant external media coverage (→Partnership with St. Mary’s University: 23:19, 18 March 2022). So, there might appear to be more to this than just the couple of references to edits that you mention. Nevertheless, I am unsure if three such remarks in total necessarily constitute "an awful lot of comments". Perhaps my querying of a perceived double standard or apparent inconsistency in claims was also felt to be too personal, though I believe it was an entirely reasonable question in the context of the discussion regarding what might be considered as controversial. If so, perhaps a grand total of four remarks are therefore perceived as "an awful lot of comments”, though perhaps not so many when viewed in context relative to 47 edits to this article alone and 30 comments on this page by Ardenssedvirens over the course of five days (unless I have miscounted). On the other hand, maybe there is more to this that I am missing.

If I correctly understand your apparently conjectural query (or possible insinuation), it might also be of potential interest that Ardenssedvirens appeared to have equated questions about the relevance of the vice-principal with comments about editors (→‎The Orange Order: 18:52, 19 March 2022). I appreciate that Ardenssedvirens would rather that comments were focused on the article rather than editors, though it would also seem prudent to rule out the possibilities that you seem to suggest. As Ardenssedvirens has been admirably prompt in replying to most queries so far, including my own (→‎The Orange Order: 17:05, 19 March 2022), and since Ardenssedvirens also appears to have tried to be as fair-minded as possible wherever disagreements are apparent, so I trust that the clarification that you seek should similarly be readily forthcoming. Hopefully Ardenssedvirens might also then be able to point us to the source of information underlying any apparently expressed certitude that students were resident in another part of the premises whenever the Orange Order was making use of the college. Alias the Jester (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Notabigot and @Curious critters the dispute resolution noticeboard seems to have archived the discussion and after three weeks very little had happened on it anyway, so I'm resuming discussion here on the Talk page.

Regarding Alan McCormick, he is not the subject of this article. The part of his employment history that is mentioned has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and it received no press coverage when he became employed at the college. No other administrative staff hired at the same time (or at any other time) are mentioned in the article. It seems to be unprecedented, irrelevant and inappropriate to feature him in the article. If you disagree please explain why he is notable in the context of an article about Union Theological College, with reference to Wikipedia criteria.

Please remember that 'Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.' Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown

This means that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that he should be included, not on me to say he should be removed. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Ardenssedvirens. I was wondering what had happened. Do you know where this has been archived? As far as I can see, the previous discussion has vanished without trace. Notabigot (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ardenssedvirens re the material about Alan McCormick. It's not appropriate to mention the hire of a minor staff member, his previous employment is irrelevant to this article, and the accusation of unlawful discrimination was dismissed, so it is a WP:BLP violation to even mention it. I will remove this. Meters (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, that seems to settle the matter. Nevertheless, I remain curious as to why Ardenssedvirens initially included this in the previous Controversy section along with discussion of the Orange Order, especially in light of Notabigot latterly drawing attention (in a separate discussion) to a possible connection between the two ([4]https://www.northernirelandworld.com/news/annual-orange-awards-held-in-lisburns-island-hall-2182458?amp). Curious critters (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As I have previous explained, @Curious critters, I did not think that a minor employee should be included. The main details about him were about the employment tribunal and minor press coverage of this. It therefore appeared that whoever originally put a mention of him in did so because they saw this as newsworthy or controversial, therefore the controversy section seemed the logical place to put it. I did not draw a connection between him and the Orange Order other than believing that they are both of little relevance to an article on the college. I have no idea if Mr McCormick is in the Orange Order and don't see how it's relevant to an article about the college. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, much appreciated. Curious critters (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Partnership with St. Mary’s University

It isn’t clear why a reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith’s teaching about marriage is being used in a paragraph about a partnership to validate degrees. It looks more like an original argument being constructed than a report of controversy within the church about the partnership. There is no accompanying statement from the church explaining the comparability of the relationship with the church’s reformed ethos so there is a serious lack of balance.

It isn’t clear whether opposition mentioned is supposed to be opposition in St. Mary’s, in Union, in PCI, or elsewhere in society.

It isn’t clear why a link to one anonymous blog constitutes evidence of opposition to the plan. There is nothing notable about the blog and no wording to indicate whose opposition it is supposed to be representative of it how many people it is representative of.

There is a lack of balance. There are no statements from the church indicating they think it is a positive move. I quoted from the Clerk of the General Assembly and linked to a page on the PCI website that would have provided that balance, but it was deleted without any explanation. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings again, Ardenssedvirens. I think you have helped to add balance. It is unclear who the author(s) of the blog might be but clearly they are not friendly to Catholics or those who wish to associate with Catholics. Quotation from the Clerk of the General Assembly is also appropriate, though some might take his comments with a pinch of salt when he also claimed that ministers were not being silenced at the same time that a minister was suspended and then dismissed partly on the grounds of not having obtained prior permission to speak. This might raise questions regarding what views some people hold that they might not be permitted to express. Curious critters (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Curious critters. We've disagreed about a few things, but I'm glad we've got some agreement here about balance. I wonder if we can go a bit further.

The author of the blog doesn't seem friendly to anyone. Lots of angry rants. I think it's very hard to present something like that as a serious source, or one that is representative of a larger group of people. I'd have thought there would have bene other articles out there or statements by identifiable individuals that would be better. If this anonymous person speaks for thmesleves, isn't part of PCI, and has nothing to do with St. Mary's, then it's hard to see how they're relevant to the article.

Regarding the Clerk, you're making an argument there rather than presenting the facts, so that's not really relevant to the article. You're also incorrect in the sense that Laurence Kirkpatrick was not disciplined in his capacity as an ordained minister. He was disciplined in his capacity as an employee of the college. As an employee he spoke about his employer without first getting permission, spoke in negative terms, and failed to defend his employer. That's never a good idea as an employee and it's not really relevant to what ministers are allowed to do, which was covered to an extent by the report and debate at the 2021 General assembly about Decision-making and dissent. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Ardenssedvirens, it seems to me that the former professor was the only person willing to speak up for the college. I have a full copy of the recording of the interview, though this does not seem to be publicly accessible any more for some peculiar reason. I originally obtained a copy from the BBC as a podcast and would happily share this but for the fact that doing so arguably might breach copyright. He made it very clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity and was probably more self-deprecating (jocularly referring to escapees from an old people's home) than critical of his employers at the time. Apart from a jocular reference, what did he say that was objectively negative? His only crime seemed to be speaking up for diversity in defense of maintaining the link with Queen's University, whereas another participant in the same broadcast equated Presbyterian with "anti-gay". If speaking up for diversity is to be equated with failure to defend his employer, then why did nobody else try to do a better job in defending the college at the time? The presenter said he was unable to get a response from the principal of the college at the time.

I don’t know anything about the report and debate at the 2021 General assembly about decision-making and dissent. I am more aware of what is published and discussed in mainstream media. Did this report get much coverage in mainstream media? If not, can you please share the thrust of what it said that might be pertinent here? Curious critters (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Curious critters, whatever is in the article should be verifiable information that can be linked to and should be purely factual. What you're doing here looks more like WP:SNYTH. We can state the fact that Kirkpatrick was dismissed. We can state the reason given for his dismissal and his response to that. We can provide a balance of notable responses to that. And we can report the outcome of the employment tribunal. But I don't think we can argue the case ourselves, one way or the other. That's something you could do on Facebook, Reddit or Twitter, but not on Wikipedia.

Apologies for assuming you were aware of the decision-making and dissent debate. You had previously added information from the 2007 and 2008 General Reports, so I thought you might be aware of the 2021 report, especially since you seem to have an interest in what Presbyterian ministers are allowed or not allowed to say. There's a summary here. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ardenssedvirens, I had taken an interest because of all the media coverage. I do not have the inside track on more up to date internal documents like you. I am not sure if my relating the contents of a publicly broadcast interview is any more synthesis than seemingly questionable eisegesis of the same material by others who have quoted this out of context. What was the outcome of the employment tribunal? I never heard anything more about this after Covid dominated and I assumed the case was just dropped thereafter. Curious critters (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry @Curious critters, you've lost me. I'm not sure wwhat you mea about an inside track or internal documents. I linked to a press release. I don't object to you quoting from the interview if it can be appropriate cited – that's already happening in the article. As I said, it's important to present the facts and be balanced which means including Mr Kirkpatrick's version of events as he tells it, as well as the church's reason for firing him in its own words. Your previous comment seems to be going further, drawing a conclusion about guilt. To be best of my knowledge the tribunal hasn't given a ruling yet. If the case has been dropped by Mr Kirkpatrick thne that would mean the article could be updated to say that Mr Kirkpatrick dropped the case and no longer disputes his dismissal. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to things like the 2021 General assembly about decision-making and dissent, which you kindly shared. I doubt many members of the general public would otherwise be aware of this or be motivated to look for it but maybe you can prove me wrong in that respect. Curious critters (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still not following. You referred to the 'inside track on … internal documents.' I referred you to a news article on the General Assembly. I'm still not clear in what sense this qualifies as either the 'inside track' or an 'internal document.' It seems to be the very opposite. You've cited the General Assembly Reports themselves, so I'm not sure why you think a news article intended for wider consumption is more internal than anything you've shared. That seems rather contradictory.

But we're getting a little sidetracked here. The issue at hand is the appropriate facts to include in the article. What the general public could be expected to know or what you could be expected to know as someone with an interest in this subject who has previously cited General Assembly Reports is rather beside the point. You are aware now of what the church's position is. Is there anything in the article on this point that you think should be changed? If not, then maybe this particular discussion is done for now. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the news item to which you had referred me (which I genuinely appreciate) seems to have been a press release by The Presbyterian Church in Ireland entitled "PCI takes decisions on ‘decision & dissent’". As such, this would seem to have been an internal source and you have not mentioned significant media coverage of this. I am happy to leave it at that unless you feel I have misunderstood something significant. Curious critters (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Curious critters A press release by definition is not an internal source. It is intended for the wider public and is published in a public location. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I raised these concerns last year. The only engagement came from sockpuppet accounts that were vandalising the page. Given that there has been no justification given in the past year for the inclusion of the above information I will remove it from the article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead section too long and detailed

MOS:LEADLENGTH says that as a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. The MoS suggested length for an article of 15,000-30,000 characters is two to three paragraphs. According to xtools there are around 17,000 characters of prose, yet the lead section for this article has seven paragraphs. That is clearly excessive.

MOS:INTRO states that 'Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions' yet there are detailed figures and over 60 footnotes. The lead section should be a concise overview and that significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. However the current lead provides detailed information and provides information that does not appear elsewhere in the article, instead of summarising what is written elsewhere. Significant amounts of the lead section look like they belong in Recent Developments and in what would need to be a new section about Courses, and a concise summary of those sections put into the lead.

There's also some information that doesn't appear to have any significance of all. For instance why is there a reference to the Convener for the Council for Training in Ministry quoted as saying he " “has had the opportunity to work alongside previous graduates.” It's not clear what the purpose of that quote is, what it is supposed to tell us about the college, or why it should be one of the first things a reader sees. It's not even clear that it's necessary to identify the current Convener for the Council for Training in Ministry.

I think that something along the following two paragraphs would concisely present the most important information and further detail could then be supplied in new or existing sections later in the article:

Union Theological College is the theological college for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and is situated in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It is governed by the Church's Council for Training in Ministry. It is responsible for training people for ministry in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and also runs courses open to the wider public.

The college currently offers three residential courses at undergraduate, postgraduate, and PhD level, and five distance learning postgraduate courses in Theology through BibleMesh. The professors of the college constitute the Presbyterian Theological faculty of Ireland (PTFI) which was granted a Royal Charter in 1881 to confer postgraduate academic degrees. A supplemental Charter was granted in 2021 to modernise the original charter. In 2021 the college established a partnership with St. Mary's University, Twickenham to accredit undergraduate degrees. This followed a time of controversy when the Professor of Church History was dismissed for gross misconduct and Queen's University Belfast broke its long-standing links with the college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardenssedvirens (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings again, Ardenssedvirens. I think rearrangement of content as you have suggested here seems appropriate. Curious critters (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sections with History

I see no reason to split History into three major sections. Surely it would be better having 'History', 'Later developments' and 'Controversy' combined into one History section?SovalValtos (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that may be a question for Ardenssedvirens who seemingly made all these sectional changes.

Notabigot (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Notabigot When did I do that? There’s an awful lot of comments being made on here about me that either personal or inaccurate could be please try to keep discussion factual and about the article? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Calm down. Allow me to remind you of relevant changes you made to sections and headings:

Revision as of 08:16, 16 March 2022‎, Ardenssedvirens (Changed title from what looks more like a newspaper editorial to a neutral description of the content)

Revision as of 17:03, 16 March 2022, Ardenssedvirens (→‎Later developments: Added headings and grouped together material relating to the breaking of the link with Queens and material relating to the new partnerships to help with the flow of reading) Notabigot (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Notabigot Your first link is to an edit where I changed the title of the Orange Order section to be more factual and descriptive. I did not create the section.

i in n the second example the ‘Later developments’ section already existed. I put in a few subheadings and rearranged the material so that it would be easier to read I did not create the section

So your claim that I was responsible for there being separate History, Later Developments, and Controversy sections is not backed up by the evidence you’ve provided. I don’t know why you’re bringing me into this. The sections all existed before I even joined Wikipedia!

I’m not sure why you’re saying ‘calm down’ either. I made a civil request to keep comments factual and about the article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, this confuses me. You have cited an old revision of the page, as edited by 109.255.55.253 at 10:26 UTC on 15 March 2022. As far as I can discern, the first recorded edit by Ardenssedvirens was at 09:32 UTC on 15 March 2022. How is 10:26 prior to 09:32, such that the sections all existed before you even joined Wikipedia?

If you did not generate additional sections, fair enough, but then who did? Maybe that is who SovalValtos should be asking instead. I only suggested calming down as it looked like you were taking things very personally. If somebody makes lots of edits, then referring to these in a discussion does not seem unreasonable to me, and referring to the editor concerned by name seems accordingly appropriate for the avoidance of ambiguity. Notabigot (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Having given editors a week to comment and no opposition to coalescing all History into one section being posted I now intend to do so. I do not intend to change the material or sub-section headings at this point unless essential for sense. I will flag the article 'Under construction'.SovalValtos (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Flagging under construction now.SovalValtos (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now removed the under construction flag. I have done a minimal amount to integrate the sections. Refinement will be in order. In particular some section headings may need adjusting and the 'Other developments' section integrating into 'History'. It would be sense to allow a few days for comments here before further changes are made.SovalValtos (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SovalValtos, thanks for contributing. However of us are in a dispute resolution at the moment regarding some of this content. As per the rules for dispute resolution I won’t be commenting on the talk page here (other than this message), or editing the article. Please don’t assume that silence on the talk page here indicates that people are happy with changes, especially when you have only waited a week and haven’t contacted editors on their own talk pages. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings again, Ardenssedvirens. I am just checking whether you are content (as I am) with the changes made by SovalValtos or if you now want to recreate the previous Controversy section? Curious critters (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Curious critters I am content with merging things into history. I did not create the controversy section. I do not think that everything in the history section though is relevant to the college. There is far too much irrelevant information about a group that has used the premises ona couple of occassions and should be deleted. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Could we get back to your previous idea of a notable alumni section? We both seemed to agree that this would be positive. What names would you like to include? Curious critters (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Curious critters It was a general idea without specific people in mind. I’m not sure who notable alumni would be, other than people already noted among the faculty. In the past there were closer links with the other colleges in the Institute of Theology so Union would have taught modules for students registered with other colleges. So a bit of a tenuous case for Andrew Trimble being an alumnus could be made. But that’s a bit of a stretch. Did you have thoughts yourself? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Slide montage.gif
• Worshipful Brother Rev. Alistair Smyth Grand Chaplain.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

New partnerships with St. Mary's University and the Kirby Laing Centre

There are a few issues with this section. Here are a few to get started

Some details seems like trivia:

• necessity of emailing admissions
• course retention rates
• payement method for courses

Can anyone give precedence for any of this being done for any other university?

There is currently a list of Youtube videos by scholars who provide material for courses at Union. It isn't clear why the videos are listed. It does not look like it is a relevant list. I would guess it's there because whoever added the list thinks these are the same videos used in the Union courses. If that is that case ther eis no evidence provided to support that. Even if it was the case, would this even be worthy of listing? Not every member of faculty is listed, so why would videos of scholars be worthy of listing?

I've already correct an incorrect claim that the videos do not feature any of the faculty. For instance Martyn C. Cowan features in the videos for modules 1 and 2 of the MTh in Reformed Theology – a detail in the source which was already cited in that claim. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring over previously discussed issues

Last year I attempted to discuss a number of issues on here. The only responses were from sockpuppets who were banned. Since then there have been no objections to suggested changes or justification offered for retaining material that I suggested removing. I therefore made a number of edits to update the article in line with these discussion. 6 reverts against my edits have been made by one user, without any explanation, in the space of 24 hours. Rather than have an edit war I'm created a space on the Talk page to discuss this so that @Our den said vie wrens or anyone else can explain why they think the changes should be reverted. Given that the issues have already been raised on Talk for a substantial amount of time I think it's appropriate for the changes I made to stay until there is a discussion, especially since Our den said virens has already edited the article several times since 26 January [5] and is therefore presumably familiar with the contents of this Talk page. WP:STATUSQUO

The changes I made which have been reverted without explanation are as follows:

[6] - Removal of Orange Order material not directly relevant to the article. (reverted twice)

[7] - Marked dead links. (reverted once)

[8] - Removal of unnecessary trivia about partnerships with other institutions. (reverted once)

[9] - Clarified that quotes were from a former minister, not an independent source, and removed irrelevant details of a case about a minister that are unrelated to the college. Also removed editorialised opinions. (reverted once)

[10] - Removed material about partnerships whose presence I had previously questioned but no one has justified the inclusion of. (reverted once)

If there is a desire to revert any of these changes, please explain it here. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

My chief concern is the reasoning given for extensive deletion of material, which does not seem persuasive to me so far. Perhaps the single line provided for an edit does not allow sufficient explanation for the reasoning of a user.

I note from your user page that you state how you are editing Wikipedia after seeing a number of inaccuracies in the article for Union Theological college. Accordingly, what are the specific factual inaccuracies in the article that you are seeking to address by removing the sections concerned, and how have any such untruths been conclusively refuted on the basis of available information from reliable sources?

Secondly, who else has sought removal of such material and what were their arguments for doing so?

Lastly, what is your relationship to the associated subject matter so that appears to be of such ongoing concern?

Our den said vie wrens (talk) Our den said vie wrens (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Our den said vie wrens. The material that was deleted had been discussed on the Talk page previously. I had questioned the inclusion of material but the only responses came from sockpuppets who ere pushing a no neutral POV and were subsequently banned, therefore no legitimate objections were made to the removal of material. You've been editing this article since January, so you've had ample opportunity to look at the Talk page and comment on issues that had been raised. The edit description also directed people to the Talk page but you made your 6 revert edits without once making use of the Talk page or putting anything in your edits to explain why you reverted.

Having raised these issues some time ago and there being no arguments put forward for the retention of the material I raised concerns about, the deletion of that material represents the consensus on here and the state of the article after I made those edits is the status quo. Your attempt to revert the edits was an attempt to undo changes that had been discussed on here and not objected to.

That dosn't mean that there can't be a discussion about putting the material back. But the statsu quo is clearly the article without the material. So it would be helpful if you explained why you think things should go back in. If you aren't familiar with the discussions to date and haven't read the Talk page during your three months of editing the article then I recommend you read the section on The Orange Order, Partnership with St Mary's University, The NPOV and "contrary to central tenets of the Westminster Confession of Faith" may also be helpful. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at the other sections of this talk page that you mention but I haven't as yet seen any discussants therein other than yourself who had sought removal of such material. To state (as you have now done) that no legitimate objections were made to the removal of material seems to be a rather different matter to describing such material as containing a number of inaccuracies (as implied by your own stated objectives on your user page). Accordingly, what are the specific inaccuracies concerned that therefore required removal of entire sections?

Similarly, I've looked at the last edit you apparently made to the article in the previous year (13:20, 6 April 2022) and the section on the Orange Order's use of premises was still in there at the time, yet you have indicated above that the deletion of such material represents the consensus on here, and you further claim that the state of the article after you made those edits is the status quo. However, the section on the Orange Order's use of premises and several other sections were subsequently removed by an IP user (109.255.55.253 at 10:49 on 15 April 2022) with the otherwise apparently unqualified claim "This whole section is very tenous!" (I assume the intended word here was "tenuous"), which was in turn described as "Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)" and accordingly reverted by a more established user called Tommi1986 at 10:56 on 15 April 2022.

The section entitled "Orange Order use of premises" was then removed by another IP user (2A00:23C4:F9A3:7901:55C:C9E6:5652:5D7E) at 15:50 on 15 July 2022 and immediately reverted by a more established user called Wesoree at 15:51, describing the previous edit as "Vandalism (RW 16.1)". This IP user seemingly then engaged in an edit war by deleting even more material, with such edits also reverted by Wesoree (at 15:51 on 15 July 2022) and accordingly described as "Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)". The same sections were again removed by yet another IP user (94.11.125.79) at 15:55 on 15 July 2022, who claimed to be "Removing inaccuracies and biased claims". This was in turn reverted by a more established user called Meters on 15 July 2022, instructing others to "take it to talk please", though it seems that neither of the latter two IP users did so at the time.

Since you have now apparently claimed responsibility for the removal of such sections, and since you have also described such action as a consensus and the status quo, despite more established users having variously described this in turn as vandalism or unexplained content removal, could you therefore please clarify your relationship with each of the three aforementioned IP users? And how does such wholesale removal of sections by these IP users (109.255.55.253, 2A00:23C4:F9A3:7901:55C:C9E6:5652:5D7E or 94.11.125.79) therefore represent the consensus on here, as you have claimed?

I've also looked at the edit which you described above as removal of unnecessary trivia about partnerships with other institutions, though the information that you latterly sought to remove does not seem to relate so much to other institutions, but rather to the provision of teaching by Union Theological College and application procedures for the same. Should this accordingly be moved instead to a different section?

As for the section on the talk page entitled "contrary to central tenets of the Westminster Confession of Faith", I am rather confused as to what this has to do with either the Orange Order or any other sections you had latterly removed. Can you please explain this connection?

Otherwise, I suspect that we will return to the question of NPOV in due course, for which I would still be grateful if you could take the opportunity to clarify your own relationship to the disputed subject matter that is evidently of such concern to you. However, the more immediate priority now seems to be a requisite focus on less subjective questions of factual accuracy, particularly in relation to your own stated objectives in editing this article and your apparent admission above to having originally made substantial edits that otherwise appear to have been the work of previous users operating under different identities.

Our den said vie wrens (talk) Our den said vie wrens (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Our den said vie wrens There have been quite a few edits to the article on these subjects over a considerable period of time. 'When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense' WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. 'Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change.' WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I raised issues, there was no discussion other than by sockpuppets who were trying to bring in a non-neutral POV. Therefore there was a consensus established here on the talk page.

I have not claimed responsibility for anything other than my own contributions. I have no responsibility for what others users do. If you want to notify other users and invite them to discussion here then you're welcome to do so. I'm not really interested in discussing the actions of other users. WIkipedia policy recommends that the determine a consensus we should 'Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy' WP:TALKDONTREVERT (emphasis mine). That's what I'm trying to do here. The history of what edits other users have made isn't really relevant to that. If people don't contribute to Talk then they're not really relevant to the question of consensus. There is where consensus is established. That's why I invited you to discussion here.

I said that material wasn't relevant ot the article. I discussed it on here. There being no objections other than by sockpuppets who were pushing a non-neutral POV and were blocked, I then took action. If you want to argue that the material I removed should be re-inserted then I'm happy to have a discussion about thier relevance. I don't see you making any arguments in favour the material. It would be helpful if you identified specific material that I removed but you think should be included and explained why you think the material should be included. It's very hard to have a discussion if you don't provide that sort of information. I know that you disagree with my edits, but I don't know why you think the material should have stayed as it was. Hopefully if you explain that then we can find a consensus, perhaps through one of us persuading the other or perhaps through compromise. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. You have evidently been editing Wikipedia for far longer than me. However, I thought I was already discussing sources as you seem to have latterly suggested.

Although you have suggested that I am welcome to notify other users and invite them to the discussion here, the IP users concerned appeared to have already declined such invitations from more experienced editors (as I indicated). So, who would you suggest that I accordingly invite in order to better explore alternative perspectives?

You have said that you don't see me making any arguments in favour of the material that you yourself have deleted, but I have already indicated my simple concern that wholesale deletion of apparently factual content appears inappropriate in itself, unless it can be shown as recognisably false or unsubstantiated. Indeed, this would seem to be in line with your own originally stated objectives on your user page, where you made specific reference to what you described as "a number of inaccuracies". However, your intentions here seem to diverge from what you state on your user page insofar as you seem to be adopting a rather more subjective criterion of purported irrelevance as the basis for substantial edits involving extensive deletion of sections. I remain to be convinced that there is not necessarily some conflation here between perceived irrelevance and personal inconvenience, so please try to persuade me otherwise. Then we should be able to work towards a consensus as you propose.

I see that the Wikipedia policy to which you have referred me also indicates that editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article. Therefore, as you admittedly took the initiative in deleting much information from the article (which I then reverted, albeit somewhat reflexively), it would seem imperative for you to explain how deletion of such content then improved the article in recognisably objective terms. You have suggested that it would be helpful if I identified specific material that you removed, so let us begin with the section relating to use of the college premises by the Orange Order, to which both of us have already referred explicitly. So, why is this entire section either inaccurate or irrelevant, as distinct from arguably inconvenient? After reading the other talk page sections to which you have referred me, I see how you clearly stated your own dislike of the Orange Order (09:30, 19 March 2022) and you previously appeared to feel that the mere inclusion of such information "reads more like a criticism of Reformed theology than an objective description of what the college does" (07:39, 16 March 2022). It is not clear to me how this necessarily undermines Reformed theology in itself, so one could therefore be forgiven for thinking that you merely wish to delete this information because it is subjectively inconvenient for a certain someone of a divergent political persuasion who might profess otherwise Reformed theology to have such an association with the college (despite apparently demonstrable overlap in sectarian perspectives of others concerned).

I also see that you previously highlighted how Assembly Buildings in Belfast advertises itself as a conference venue (17:11, 18 March 2022) and you had taken what you described as "the default neutral assumption" that "it is a purely commercial arrangement unless evidence to the contrary is supplied" (09:12, 16 March 2022). Accordingly, what is known about either commercial use of Assembly Buildings by the Orange Order or the commercial hire of college premises to other comparable groups? After all, this would also seem to be of fundamental pertinence to the establishment of your previous argument.

Our den said vie wrens (talk) Our den said vie wrens (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)