The contents of the The Call of the Entrepreneur page were merged into Acton Institute on 24 June 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Acton Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Frankly, the above quote from the article is simply incomprehensible. There *has* to be a better way to phrase the underlying message that sentence is trying to convey. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 21:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The quote has been replaced. One user has inserted and later re-inserted the characterization "conservative Christian" into the description of the Acton Institute. I don't see any documentation for this claim; and the link to the Christian Right describes a movement which does not seem to include the kind of thing the Acton Institute does. If noone objects I will remove the categorization. TheDean 17:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the clearest indicator of the ideology of the Institute can be found by reading a paper by Robert Sirico himself entitled "The Late-Scholastic and Austrian Link to Modern Catholic Economic Thought" and available on the Acton Institute website. Since Sirico is the president of the Institute, it is very likely that the approach of this paper is indicative of the orientation of the Institute itself. It is not particularly traditional as the phrase "traditional Christian" is widely understood. The Christian theological tradition is being mined for insights into human nature, ethics, the nature of economic activity in general, and for a view of human institutions that will prevent both the Marxist and the capitalist over-simplifications of the role of government. Theological sources are used sensitively, flexibly, and in some cases, innovatively. There is none of the feeling of party-line insistence that is felt by outsiders to the traditionalist movement when they listen in on traditionalist conversations. Rather, there is a clear sense that intellectual lines should be followed where they lead, even if they lead in new directions, as long as the deep insights of the best contributors to the discussion are not ignored or subverted. I wouldn't call this traditionalist, scholastic, conservative, liberal, rationalist, radical, or relativist; such labels are too flat. The term used most often by the materials of the Acton Institute itself is "personalist." I would be open to using this, if it were understandable by Wikipedia readers, but it seems somewhat arcane, almost a technical term. How about "a Christian worldview influenced by Catholic social teaching," with a link to the Wikipedia article Catholic social teaching? My goal is to lead readers to discover more about the Acton Institute, and not to quickly pigeonhole it. I think this is in keeping with the goals of an encyclopedia and with the NPOV approach. TheDean 14:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Now the most recent edit indicates that some Catholics say the institute is overly capitalistic. Can the editor who added this please provide some documentation? TheDean 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Classical Liberal surely makes the most sense, as it certainly isn't Conservative. Mathmo Talk 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
In response to this edit summary which states: "Removed notability tags, Acton Institute itself is a valid source for this article."
WP:Notability states that a topic is presumed to be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please note that the "Acton Institute itself" is not independent!
WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Please note that the "Acton Institute itself" is a primary source on the Acton Institute. {{ primarysources}} backs this up by stating that "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article."
The removal of the notability and primarysources tags was therefore wholly inappropriate, as was the reinclusion of excessive primary-sourced material. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
To date the "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" amounts to:
Hardly "significant". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As of this revision, 12 out of the 14 sources cited for this article are to the Acton Institute itself. This is WAY excessive, and turns the article into little better than a WP:Autobiography. It also violates WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Acton Institute's self-description (over third parties' view of it). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason the maintenance tag was removed is because it is inaccurate. Per WP:OR "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." I find it hard to believe that Acton's periodicals, for the simple fact that they exist, are challenged and require a third party source. Vilepickle ( talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And no Vilepickle, staff blurbs of Acton Institute associates at other organisations they are affiliated with are not "third party" sources, as they carry this information due to their relationship with the people involved. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not been able to find any source for the quotations attributed to Randall Balmer outside of this article and blogs which appear to be simply repeating our text. Mangoe ( talk) 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
According to MOS:HONORIFIC "As with regular titles, honorific titles should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that." Therefore in the info box, Sirico should be listed as "Rev." Soonersfan168 ( talk) 17:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Acton Institute and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: The terms Fr., Father, Rev., or Reverend should not be used, at all, in reference to Sirico as is made clear by MOS:HONORIFIC. Since those terms are honorific prefixes, not honorific titles, they should not even be used in the infobox or in the first reference to Sirico. At the same time, if Sirico's status as a priest is relevant to his connection with the Institute, and if both that status and that relevancy can be documented with reliable sources, then they can be discussed in the article, but the prefix should clearly be omitted. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
Calvin Beisner may at one time have been connected with Acton, but he is not to be found on the staff page of the website--there are in fact no "adjunct scholars" listed at all. The sentence of the source (Thy Kingdom Come) that identifies him as such seems too be erroneous in other ways too. It refers to Acton as "neoconservative," which, according to WP:Neoconservatism, is not an accurate use of the term. The above conversations on this talk page wouldn't lead anyone to think Acton was neoconservative, whatever it may actually be. If there aren't any objections, I'll remove him from the Policy Section, since that sentence seems to be a mischaracterization. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The sourcing for the article's statement on environmentalism is also to this book, but I've got the book now, and it doesn't say what the article said, so I've taken it down. It's not accurate to refer to Acton as dominionist--for one things its two founders aren't evangelical. What the book says of Acton's position on the environment is simply a quotation of Acton's own position, which says nothing pro/con the scientific consensus on global warming--only that Acton Inst. believes progress and private property aid in protection of the environment. Since there wasn't backing for what was said, I've removed that section from the policy heading Soonersfan168 ( talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the Balmer book was still referenced in the article--I've removed it because it's simply not a reliably NPOV source. The factual errors alone show that the author lacks elementary knowledge of the institute--it's mainly a screed. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 14:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we've pretty much taken care of the 3rd party sources problem. There's still stuff that could use better sourcing, and I'm working on that (including getting the encyclpedia that Hrafn mentioned above), but it seems to me we've now established the notability of the Acton Institute via 3rd party sources? Soonersfan168 ( talk) 17:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Sources for this article now satisfy all three primary criteria for WP:Notability (organizations and companies). (1)Several sources satisfy the WP:CORPDEPTH req. in that they exhibit "a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and [make] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." (2)The audience of these publications ranges from regional (Western Michigan) to international (Poland). (3)These sources are independent. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The sources for the article are either:
These do not satisfy WP:Notability criteria. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is now replete with 3rd party sources. I'll take the 3rd party source tag down if there are no objections.
As for notability, there are now local, regional, national, and international sources cited. I'll remove the notability tag also if there are no objections. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 19:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
3/5 sources for this recently added and then reverted section were reliable, 3rd party sources: all three were from news organizations. Hrafn says "none of this appears to have any reliable third party sourcing -- in fact much [of] the sourcing isn't clear at all)"--I'm not sure where that's coming from? Full citations are provided as far as I can tell. Let's make sure work on this page doesn't descend into WP:EW. If there's not a cogent response I'm going to revert the article in a few hours. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In summary, very poor sourcing. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
Please note that it says that the material has to be published by a reliable source -- not that the reliable sources merely makes the claims "reasonable". The webpage that you cited did not verify any of this information. All it says is:
Acton University is a unique, four-day exploration of the intellectual foundations of a free society. Guided by a distinguished, international faculty, Acton University is an opportunity to deepen your knowledge and integrate rigorous philosophy, Christian theology and sound economics.
At Acton University, you will:
Build your own curriculum. Choose from more than seventy courses ranging from the theological and philosophical, to the policy-oriented and practical.
Learn from world-class faculty. Meet leading authorities on economics, theology, public policy, globalization, the environment, and other disciplines.
Network. Interact with people from diverse backgrounds who share a concern about issues at the heart of faith and freedom.
Equip yourself to engage in the debate. Better articulate your understanding of the Judeo-Christian view of liberty and morality and its application in a free and virtuous society.
Also, I would suggest that using a third-party source for the bare existence of something, then swapping over to a primary source for all the information about it is against the spirit of WP:DUE. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As I have explained above, the 3rd party source confirms more than the bare existence of the conference. To deny that, without giving any rational, is not reasonable. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 14:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Really? What part of "Acton’s annual conference in Grand Rapids is its largest and most international event. Philosophy, theology, and economics are integrated. The conference is focused on the convergence of philosophy, theology, and economics in the intellectual foundations of a free society" is contained in the Polish source? I certainly couldn't find any of it. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire article is a discussion of goings-on at the conference that deal with philosophy, theology, and economics. There is nothing in the Polish source other than that. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that when the Acton Institute website says that the conference integrates "rigorous philosophy, Christian theology and sound economics" they are not lying. I removed the advertising-like language, but the existence of the conference and its general character have been established by a 3rd party source that describes the agenda of the conference. The primary source is used to provide a concise statement of that. Please explain specifically how this violates WP:SPS Soonersfan168 ( talk) 15:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What is the article about if not religion and economics??? Soonersfan168 ( talk) 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(i) Religion is not the same thing as theology (the latter is a subset of the former). (ii) I said philosophy, not economics. And you've done nothing for "its largest and most international event" Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(i)Subset is most certainly not the term to describe the relationship between theology and religion. But I am not going to nitpick here: any unbiased party that read the Polish source and then the Acton source would conclude that I have used them appropriately. If you think that is not the case--that somehow the Polish source does not support the characterization of Acton University as a conference dedicated to intellectual inquiry into religion and economics and their interplay, you may certainly request further comment. Your argument is, however, entirely semantic, and your editorial approach to this section of the article comes close to WP:GAME. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 17:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to ask for its immediate removal, but a 1992 Capital Research Center report is both a rather old, and rather partisan, source. Replacement with something more recent & more neutral, when possible, would be preferable. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I have substantially improved this section of the article, and included one thing sourced to Acton itself. The change from a few weeks ago is dramatic--now the only things refering to Acton's site are the mission statement and the board. Thus it seems perfectly within the bounds of WP:SPS to source the blog information to Acton while I look for alternate sourcing. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There's not really any 3rd party sourcing for the 4 Acton affiliates--they're small operations in foreign countries--one doesn't even have a website (it's in Zambia). Maybe we could fold them into the Notable Individuals associated with Acton and make it sort of an Associated People and Organizations section? Soonersfan168 ( talk) 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The fact that an organization has a newsletter and blog is rarely sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. At a bare minimum we would need reliable independent secondary sourcing demonstrating notability. We don't, so these bullets should be removed from the "Research and publications" section. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I have added a POV tag in good faith. The article reads as too pro-subject, too much promotion of trivia, soapboxing, some of the language is too affectionate. Please do not remove the tag until these issues are resolved. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have added a COI tag in good faith because the article has a pro-subject slant (see discussion above) in part because of paid COI editing by Vilepickle, who, according to his own Twitter page, is the web coordinator for the Acton Institute. (This is not outing because Vilepickle has already voluntarily outed himself.) Please do not remove the tag until the POV issues are resolved. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acton Institute. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acton Institute. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.clpress.com/news/2011/11/15/christian%E2%80%99s-library-press-launches-new-kuyper-bookWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Formal notice has been received from user:Ascendingrisingharmonising to merge The Call of the Entrepreneur into Acton Institute. Please discuss the proposal below.
Proposer's rationale: There seems to be a lack of independent reliable sources for The Call of the Entrepreneur suggesting it is not notable enough for its own page, but would be fine as a section on the Acton Institute page. Felix QW ( talk) 18:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The contents of the The Call of the Entrepreneur page were merged into Acton Institute on 24 June 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Acton Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Frankly, the above quote from the article is simply incomprehensible. There *has* to be a better way to phrase the underlying message that sentence is trying to convey. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 21:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The quote has been replaced. One user has inserted and later re-inserted the characterization "conservative Christian" into the description of the Acton Institute. I don't see any documentation for this claim; and the link to the Christian Right describes a movement which does not seem to include the kind of thing the Acton Institute does. If noone objects I will remove the categorization. TheDean 17:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the clearest indicator of the ideology of the Institute can be found by reading a paper by Robert Sirico himself entitled "The Late-Scholastic and Austrian Link to Modern Catholic Economic Thought" and available on the Acton Institute website. Since Sirico is the president of the Institute, it is very likely that the approach of this paper is indicative of the orientation of the Institute itself. It is not particularly traditional as the phrase "traditional Christian" is widely understood. The Christian theological tradition is being mined for insights into human nature, ethics, the nature of economic activity in general, and for a view of human institutions that will prevent both the Marxist and the capitalist over-simplifications of the role of government. Theological sources are used sensitively, flexibly, and in some cases, innovatively. There is none of the feeling of party-line insistence that is felt by outsiders to the traditionalist movement when they listen in on traditionalist conversations. Rather, there is a clear sense that intellectual lines should be followed where they lead, even if they lead in new directions, as long as the deep insights of the best contributors to the discussion are not ignored or subverted. I wouldn't call this traditionalist, scholastic, conservative, liberal, rationalist, radical, or relativist; such labels are too flat. The term used most often by the materials of the Acton Institute itself is "personalist." I would be open to using this, if it were understandable by Wikipedia readers, but it seems somewhat arcane, almost a technical term. How about "a Christian worldview influenced by Catholic social teaching," with a link to the Wikipedia article Catholic social teaching? My goal is to lead readers to discover more about the Acton Institute, and not to quickly pigeonhole it. I think this is in keeping with the goals of an encyclopedia and with the NPOV approach. TheDean 14:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Now the most recent edit indicates that some Catholics say the institute is overly capitalistic. Can the editor who added this please provide some documentation? TheDean 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Classical Liberal surely makes the most sense, as it certainly isn't Conservative. Mathmo Talk 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
In response to this edit summary which states: "Removed notability tags, Acton Institute itself is a valid source for this article."
WP:Notability states that a topic is presumed to be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please note that the "Acton Institute itself" is not independent!
WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Please note that the "Acton Institute itself" is a primary source on the Acton Institute. {{ primarysources}} backs this up by stating that "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article."
The removal of the notability and primarysources tags was therefore wholly inappropriate, as was the reinclusion of excessive primary-sourced material. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
To date the "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" amounts to:
Hardly "significant". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As of this revision, 12 out of the 14 sources cited for this article are to the Acton Institute itself. This is WAY excessive, and turns the article into little better than a WP:Autobiography. It also violates WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Acton Institute's self-description (over third parties' view of it). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason the maintenance tag was removed is because it is inaccurate. Per WP:OR "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." I find it hard to believe that Acton's periodicals, for the simple fact that they exist, are challenged and require a third party source. Vilepickle ( talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And no Vilepickle, staff blurbs of Acton Institute associates at other organisations they are affiliated with are not "third party" sources, as they carry this information due to their relationship with the people involved. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not been able to find any source for the quotations attributed to Randall Balmer outside of this article and blogs which appear to be simply repeating our text. Mangoe ( talk) 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
According to MOS:HONORIFIC "As with regular titles, honorific titles should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that." Therefore in the info box, Sirico should be listed as "Rev." Soonersfan168 ( talk) 17:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Acton Institute and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: The terms Fr., Father, Rev., or Reverend should not be used, at all, in reference to Sirico as is made clear by MOS:HONORIFIC. Since those terms are honorific prefixes, not honorific titles, they should not even be used in the infobox or in the first reference to Sirico. At the same time, if Sirico's status as a priest is relevant to his connection with the Institute, and if both that status and that relevancy can be documented with reliable sources, then they can be discussed in the article, but the prefix should clearly be omitted. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
Calvin Beisner may at one time have been connected with Acton, but he is not to be found on the staff page of the website--there are in fact no "adjunct scholars" listed at all. The sentence of the source (Thy Kingdom Come) that identifies him as such seems too be erroneous in other ways too. It refers to Acton as "neoconservative," which, according to WP:Neoconservatism, is not an accurate use of the term. The above conversations on this talk page wouldn't lead anyone to think Acton was neoconservative, whatever it may actually be. If there aren't any objections, I'll remove him from the Policy Section, since that sentence seems to be a mischaracterization. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The sourcing for the article's statement on environmentalism is also to this book, but I've got the book now, and it doesn't say what the article said, so I've taken it down. It's not accurate to refer to Acton as dominionist--for one things its two founders aren't evangelical. What the book says of Acton's position on the environment is simply a quotation of Acton's own position, which says nothing pro/con the scientific consensus on global warming--only that Acton Inst. believes progress and private property aid in protection of the environment. Since there wasn't backing for what was said, I've removed that section from the policy heading Soonersfan168 ( talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the Balmer book was still referenced in the article--I've removed it because it's simply not a reliably NPOV source. The factual errors alone show that the author lacks elementary knowledge of the institute--it's mainly a screed. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 14:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we've pretty much taken care of the 3rd party sources problem. There's still stuff that could use better sourcing, and I'm working on that (including getting the encyclpedia that Hrafn mentioned above), but it seems to me we've now established the notability of the Acton Institute via 3rd party sources? Soonersfan168 ( talk) 17:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Sources for this article now satisfy all three primary criteria for WP:Notability (organizations and companies). (1)Several sources satisfy the WP:CORPDEPTH req. in that they exhibit "a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and [make] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." (2)The audience of these publications ranges from regional (Western Michigan) to international (Poland). (3)These sources are independent. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The sources for the article are either:
These do not satisfy WP:Notability criteria. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is now replete with 3rd party sources. I'll take the 3rd party source tag down if there are no objections.
As for notability, there are now local, regional, national, and international sources cited. I'll remove the notability tag also if there are no objections. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 19:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
3/5 sources for this recently added and then reverted section were reliable, 3rd party sources: all three were from news organizations. Hrafn says "none of this appears to have any reliable third party sourcing -- in fact much [of] the sourcing isn't clear at all)"--I'm not sure where that's coming from? Full citations are provided as far as I can tell. Let's make sure work on this page doesn't descend into WP:EW. If there's not a cogent response I'm going to revert the article in a few hours. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In summary, very poor sourcing. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
Please note that it says that the material has to be published by a reliable source -- not that the reliable sources merely makes the claims "reasonable". The webpage that you cited did not verify any of this information. All it says is:
Acton University is a unique, four-day exploration of the intellectual foundations of a free society. Guided by a distinguished, international faculty, Acton University is an opportunity to deepen your knowledge and integrate rigorous philosophy, Christian theology and sound economics.
At Acton University, you will:
Build your own curriculum. Choose from more than seventy courses ranging from the theological and philosophical, to the policy-oriented and practical.
Learn from world-class faculty. Meet leading authorities on economics, theology, public policy, globalization, the environment, and other disciplines.
Network. Interact with people from diverse backgrounds who share a concern about issues at the heart of faith and freedom.
Equip yourself to engage in the debate. Better articulate your understanding of the Judeo-Christian view of liberty and morality and its application in a free and virtuous society.
Also, I would suggest that using a third-party source for the bare existence of something, then swapping over to a primary source for all the information about it is against the spirit of WP:DUE. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As I have explained above, the 3rd party source confirms more than the bare existence of the conference. To deny that, without giving any rational, is not reasonable. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 14:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Really? What part of "Acton’s annual conference in Grand Rapids is its largest and most international event. Philosophy, theology, and economics are integrated. The conference is focused on the convergence of philosophy, theology, and economics in the intellectual foundations of a free society" is contained in the Polish source? I certainly couldn't find any of it. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire article is a discussion of goings-on at the conference that deal with philosophy, theology, and economics. There is nothing in the Polish source other than that. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that when the Acton Institute website says that the conference integrates "rigorous philosophy, Christian theology and sound economics" they are not lying. I removed the advertising-like language, but the existence of the conference and its general character have been established by a 3rd party source that describes the agenda of the conference. The primary source is used to provide a concise statement of that. Please explain specifically how this violates WP:SPS Soonersfan168 ( talk) 15:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What is the article about if not religion and economics??? Soonersfan168 ( talk) 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(i) Religion is not the same thing as theology (the latter is a subset of the former). (ii) I said philosophy, not economics. And you've done nothing for "its largest and most international event" Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(i)Subset is most certainly not the term to describe the relationship between theology and religion. But I am not going to nitpick here: any unbiased party that read the Polish source and then the Acton source would conclude that I have used them appropriately. If you think that is not the case--that somehow the Polish source does not support the characterization of Acton University as a conference dedicated to intellectual inquiry into religion and economics and their interplay, you may certainly request further comment. Your argument is, however, entirely semantic, and your editorial approach to this section of the article comes close to WP:GAME. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 17:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to ask for its immediate removal, but a 1992 Capital Research Center report is both a rather old, and rather partisan, source. Replacement with something more recent & more neutral, when possible, would be preferable. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I have substantially improved this section of the article, and included one thing sourced to Acton itself. The change from a few weeks ago is dramatic--now the only things refering to Acton's site are the mission statement and the board. Thus it seems perfectly within the bounds of WP:SPS to source the blog information to Acton while I look for alternate sourcing. Soonersfan168 ( talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There's not really any 3rd party sourcing for the 4 Acton affiliates--they're small operations in foreign countries--one doesn't even have a website (it's in Zambia). Maybe we could fold them into the Notable Individuals associated with Acton and make it sort of an Associated People and Organizations section? Soonersfan168 ( talk) 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The fact that an organization has a newsletter and blog is rarely sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. At a bare minimum we would need reliable independent secondary sourcing demonstrating notability. We don't, so these bullets should be removed from the "Research and publications" section. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I have added a POV tag in good faith. The article reads as too pro-subject, too much promotion of trivia, soapboxing, some of the language is too affectionate. Please do not remove the tag until these issues are resolved. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have added a COI tag in good faith because the article has a pro-subject slant (see discussion above) in part because of paid COI editing by Vilepickle, who, according to his own Twitter page, is the web coordinator for the Acton Institute. (This is not outing because Vilepickle has already voluntarily outed himself.) Please do not remove the tag until the POV issues are resolved. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acton Institute. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acton Institute. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.clpress.com/news/2011/11/15/christian%E2%80%99s-library-press-launches-new-kuyper-bookWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Formal notice has been received from user:Ascendingrisingharmonising to merge The Call of the Entrepreneur into Acton Institute. Please discuss the proposal below.
Proposer's rationale: There seems to be a lack of independent reliable sources for The Call of the Entrepreneur suggesting it is not notable enough for its own page, but would be fine as a section on the Acton Institute page. Felix QW ( talk) 18:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)