Talk:Pepperdine University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ken Star Was Never Faculty (He is Currently the Dean of the Law School)

In the late 90's Pepperdine asked Kenneth Star to be the dean of the law school. Because of his involvement in the Clinton investigation, Star regretfully declined the invitation. After the Clinton investigation was concluded, Pepperdine once again extended its invitation. Star accepted, and today he serves as the Dean.

Kenneth Starr is the current dean, as verified by the Dean's message on the Law School webpage. Serogi 22:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

George Pepperdine

As there is no Wikipedia bio of George Pepperdine, shouldn't someone either A) write one or B) at a minimum, put some info about him into this article (notice that David Lipscomb has both)? I don't know enough to be the one to do it. Wasn't his fortune associated with the founding of Western Auto? Rlquall 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

there have been many conservative supreme court judges to visit pepperdine law school and participate in lectures, moot courts, etc. does anyone have a list? It should be added!--Caligvla 08:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Honor Pledge

All students ARE required to sign an honor pledge before enrollment to the undergraduate college of Pepperdine University. As an alumnus who signed the honor pledge in 2001, I deleted the contradictory statement under "Rankings and Reputation." -JB

Pepperdine university operates on the foundations laid by the Church of Christ. It is a 'dry' university and Coeds are not allowed to be in each other's rooms past a certain time on campus. I think it's 1am on weekends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.253.74 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3/2 Engineering? What's that?!

What is 3/2 Engineering? That whole section needs some rewriting anyway.RSido (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The list of sports alumni has a link to the disambiguation page for Daniel Evans. I don't know anything about baseball, but because it says he is a player, and not a manager, I'm guessing it isn't Dan Evans (baseball), and I couldn't see another relevant link. I didn't want to remove it, because there is obviously a style in the list to link all the names whether they have articles or not, so I've put it as a link to Daniel Evans (Seattle Mariners baseball) for now. Could someone who knows more about it please link it to the correct Daniel Evans if there is one? Thanks loads, Kastrel (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Old comments

While Pepperdine was within the traditional area of unincorporated Malibu, when the city of Malibu incorporated, the university demanded that the borders be drawn to so as to be excluded. Rather than flatly saying that Pepperdine is "in" Malibu, a more accurate description would be that the university is "adjacent to" Malibu, or alternatively, that it is in the "Malibu area." Will McW 22:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's how it is handled in the JPL article:

The Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) near Pasadena, California builds and operates unmanned spacecraft ...
Almost all of the 177 acre (0.7 km²) JPL campus is actually located in the city of La Canada Flintridge, California, but the JPL main gate and several buildings are in Pasadena, so it maintains a Pasadena address (4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109).

FYI - Willmcw 01:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

this unevesity was used for tv program zoey 101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.86.130 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Ivy League Universities of the West Coast? Never heard of it. Is there an official list? -Willmcw 05:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe it exists. The Ivy League is an East Coast football league that consists of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Columbia, and Penn. -JB

Endowment

The figure doesn't seem right to me, or at least is confusing. US $8,500,070 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.219.71.171 (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-Notables

I would suggest that all red-linked people under the "notables" list are presumptively non-notable, and should therefore be deleted. If they are really notable, someone can write an article on them, and they will not be red-linked. Does anyone disagree?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They should either have a WP article or a reference per WP:BIO. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Alanraywiki. Either an article or a reference that shows they'd qualify for an article.   Will Beback  talk  16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I strongly object to insisting that persons must have their own article. Our notability guidelines explicitly state that "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles." So we certainly have the discretion to discuss topics and people within articles that are not "deserving" of their own article.
Of course, I don't mean to imply, suggest, or mean that we should feel free to include everyone and everything in this article. But the argument that "they don't have or can't have their own Wikipedia article" is not a valid or reasonable argument. If someone just isn't interesting, notable, or important in the least then by all means let's remove them from the article. But persons can certainly have importance limited to a particular topic or institution that makes it worthwhile to mention or discuss that person in an article without creating an article just for him or her. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, requiring references is a no-brainer and I support that requirement (for nearly anything in this or any other article, not just "notable people"). --ElKevbo (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you may be missing a crucial point. You can mention a person in an article even if he doesn't warrant an article. But here we are going further -- we are suggesting that these people are notable, that they belong on a list of notable people. If they don't warrant an article, it is likely because they are not notable enough to warrant one ... or, perhaps, because there is such a dearth of interest in them, that no one bothered to write one ... which would also suggest that they are not notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I would add that a glance at the list suggests to me that some of these people are not especially noteworthy. It looks as though the only criteria for academecians, for example, is that they teach at a university. Well, that would also make every professor at the school noteworthy, past and present. Are we going to list them? This is a quite shoddy list, in my opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It has been two years, and y'all have not cleaned up this horrid mess. Therefore I will do it for you. If you want these people listed again, please demonstrate notability; don't list every alumni that ever attended Pepperdine.Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks much better now. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

File:Gallup weisman museum.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gallup weisman museum.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Alumni section

A few days back I removed Malcolm Thomas as an alumnus because he graduated from San Diego State, but it was reverted, and while the topic may be unimportant I suggest that only those who graduated from Pepperdine ( or any college) be listed as alumni. Thoughts of others are welcome on this.Princetoniac (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


I am a copyeditor at the University so I cannot make any edits, but I fact-checked the Kelly Hu addition since I've never seen her touted as an alum before. Despite People Magazine's link saying so, my colleagues in the registrar office cannot find her as having ever attended. Her professional bio says she went into modeling right out of high school and says nothing about going to college [1], so I think she has no Pepperdine connection. Vway3 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)vway3

References

  1. ^ http://kellyhu.com/bio1.html

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pepperdine University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section

The current "In popular culture" section of this article doesn't discuss this university's role in popular culture or cite any sources on that point. Instead, it has three Wikipedia editor-selected examples of this university being used for filming or mentioned in a movie or TV show; only one of these examples cites a source and that source is a dead link. Another editor restored this section after I removed it but he or she neither used an edit summary nor left any explanation in Talk.

I also note that the current consensus on the content in college and university articles states that:

"[Popular] culture info...should not be a trivia list or section, but rather a collection of analyses regarding the university's role in popular culture using reliable sources."

Any editor who has sources that address this topic are welcome to add them. Otherwise I propose removing this section - and leaving it out until an editor can provide reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus anywhere on Wikipedia for the wholesale remove of popcult sections. If you have specific problems with specific entries, they should be discussed here, just as with any other information in any article. Something that is part of our popular culture is not ipso facto "trivia" and cannot be deleted on sight on that basis -- so please do not remove the section wholesale unless you have a consensus to do so from discussion here. I, for instance, am opposed to your suggestion, so at this moment there is no consensus for removal. BMK (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I raised substantive points above, including the current consensus regarding college and university articles, to which you should respond rather than simply declaring a blanket opposition. And please remember that consensus does not imply or require unanimity. ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it does require actually having more people in favor of one option than the other. As for your complaint: you raised general blanket objections, I countered them. Now, please deal with each item specifically, as requested. BMK (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There isn't a single source in the section that actually addresses the topic. Why should any of it be in this article? ElKevbo (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss specifically, as requested, your objections to the content of each item. For instance: are they inaccurate? Do they misrepresent facts? Do they contain analysis or interpretation, instead of being straight-forward representations of the media item described. These are legitimate objections. BMK (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
None of the items discuss the university's role in popular culture and without such a source the section is pure synthesis. ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You misstate and misunderstand the purpose of an "In popular culture" section, which is not to discuss "the university's role in popular culture" but instead to outline the subject's appearances in popular culture. Given this fundamental misunderstanding on your part, it is no wonder that you wish to delete all the entries. BMK (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. No, this is an encyclopedia that is based on reliable sources, preferably secondary or tertiary sources. This is not a collection of editor-selected examples used to construct an argument or indiscriminate lists; a project like TV Tropes may be more suitable for this kind of activity and this material. ElKevbo (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
No, actually, I don't think you do see the problem. Although we rely for the most part on secondary and tertiary reliable sources, primary sources are acceptable under certain circumstances, and this is one of them. For a straight-forward description of the content of a play, film, TV show, book, piece of music or other media item, there is no more accurate source than the media item itself, so as long as the popcult entry is limited to mere description, and does not include any interpretation or analysis -- either of which would require a secondary source per WP:OR -- each item is considered to be sourced by the item it is describing (see also User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#Original research)
Now, of course, not every mention of an article's subject is significant, and that is where editorial judgment comes into play, and why it is necessary to have a consensus discussion about it, something that you, unfortunately, seem to be avoiding, despite my repeated requests that you begin one for each entry you have objections to. WP:WEIGHT certainly can come into effect here, and I myself have deleted or agreed to delete entries from other articles on the basis of their being "mere mentions" which are not significant. Perhaps that is the case here as well, but we don't know because you haven't stated your specific objections so that other editors can respond to them.
So, I ask again, please state your apecific objections, in the terms I have outlines above, to whichever of the popcult entries you have concerns about. BMK (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why you're so adamantly insisting this largely unsourced and unhelpful material remain in this article and wasting our time but we'll have to get some other editors involved because you continue to (a) obstinately avoid the original and most important issue that neither the section nor the one source in it discusses the purported topic of this university's role in popular culture and (b) deny that there is an existing consensus on this topic at least among editors who frequent college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why you persist in this quasi-academic infighting instead of simply responding to my entirely reasonable request for specific objections to specific entries. When you do, I'll be glad to participate in that discussion, but this kind of time-wasting b.s. is not interesting to me. However, if you delete an entry without consensus to do so, I will revert your deletion again on that basis. BMK (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You've ignored the basic question for over a week now so I will assume that you don't have any genuine interest in collaborating or communicating. ElKevbo (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You should note that two of the entries DO have sources, one of which I added after you started this round of discussion. Only the third entry, which is a rather weak association to Pepperdine and probably not worth defending is now at issue by your own logic, correct? So all of this discussion now is about the Joey character. Trackinfo (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to have a foolish, myopic focus on the specific items in this editor-selected list then take note that (a) the first item only mentions the subject and has no other context, explanation, or discussion, (b) the second source is a broken link, and (c) the third item is completely unsourced. So these three items would be poor choices for this section even if you were to provide some sources that actually discuss the topic at hand. ElKevbo (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted?

First, this RfC is "legitimate", whatever that means, and participants are reminded to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. There is no consensus for removal of the section at this time. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted? ElKevbo (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not q legitimate RfC question, since it does not provide a specific question to comment on. That's not unexpected, since the RfC creator, ElKevbo, has consistently refused to answer specific questions concerning the popcult entries in this article. Rather then respond to the multiple requests for specific objections to specific entries, ElKevbo has simply provided broad pronouncements which are not backed by policy. This RfC is unnecessary, since if ElKevbo had provided specific reasons for disagreement with specfic entries, an agreement might have been reached. Instead he has consistently refused to do so, simply because ne appears to be among those editors who object to "In popular culture" sections per se. Unfortunately for him, the Wikipediaa community has consistently refused to al;ow wholesake removals of "poupcult" sections, in favor of dealint with specific problems with entires, something that ElKevbo has conmsistently refused to do (see the discussions above). BMK (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
If you read the discussion above then you'll find that none of that is true. But you've already spoken at length so why don't you let others voice their opinions? ElKevbo (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Because as a non-legitimate RfC, it cannot determine consensus, so its results will be ignored. BMK (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I came here as a result of a link to the discussion from WT:UNI. Overall, I think that that the section was OK. However, it went into too much detail so I've reduced the description slightly. (If anyone wants to see the details of what the TV shows were, they can easily click on the link to see the show's Wikipedia article.) I've also removed one reference, which seemed to be a one-off joke in the sitcom Joey (a one-off joke isn't notable enough to be included). However, I've kept the reference that one of the main characters in Joey was a Pepperdine alumn. Bluap (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment The section as currently constructed does not provide much (if any) encyclopedic value, IMO.--MichaelProcton (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Summoned by bot. Whatever is left of the current section should be removed. It is trivial at best and one of the two items listed is unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REferences?

Except references to recent things like ratings, this article is just about empty of references. The history section needs sources. 137.159.184.234 (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Rankings

I adjusted the rankings as they were incorrect. Wagner College (NY) won the "Most Beautiful Campus" title in 2005. Pepperdine was #1 in the 2006 list. (I also made a typo myself when I was fixing it, so I'm fixing it again.)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pepperdine University. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

LGBT controversy section

I fear that the section of this page covering the so-called "Anti-LGBT controversy" gives disproportionate weight to a law suit decided in favor of the university and a resolved internal issue. No other law suits are covered on this page, and no other statements made by deans or presidents about student clubs are recorded on this page. If the information in this section was ever notable enough for inclusion, that time seems to have passed. I am happy to entertain alternate proposals, but I think this section should be removed. Swper (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cynthia D. Ritchie

Greetings,

Wikipedia has an article Cynthia D. Ritchie, you are requested to update, expand, copy edit the article. Also you can help the same by adding the article to your watch list.

Bookku (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Malibu city limits

  • Despite speculation to the contrary, Pepperdine University is located within the Malibu city limits. Pepperdine University has had numerous instances of disagreement with the Malibu community over various construction projects which would require permits from the city to build. Some of these include the new Drescher Graduate Campus which was completed in 2003 and a proposed Vreizon cellular phone tower. Therefore, despite rumpors to the contrary about the exact location of Pepperdine University with relation to Malibu city limits, recent construction squables and debates go to show that in fact, Pepperdine University lies within the jurisdiction of the city of Malibu.

These are nice thoughts, but I don't see any sources. The incorporation papers of Malibu, [1], appear to clearly exclude Pepperdine. Since then they may have acquired additional property inside the borders of the city. See also this map of the 3rd Supervisorial District, which clearly shows the boundaries of the city of Malibu excluding the main Pepperdine campus. [2] I'd be happy to have other information. -Willmcw 23:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also see this voting district finder - the street address for Pepperdine is listed as being in the "unincorporated" county.[3]

I think the origin of the confusion is the name. "Malibu" is both the name of an incorporated city, and the name of the adjacent unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. This phenomenon is common in Southern California. The same applies with the Malibou Lake community, which is sometimes described as "Agoura", although it was not included when the City of Agoura Hills incorporated, and is certainly not in Malibu, either. Even more confusing is the nearby community of the City of Westlake Village, as the lake for which it is named is only half-way within the city- yet most of the residents of the other half of the lake don't even know they live in the adjacent City of Thousand Oaks. The idea is that this type of confusion is quite common in this general area.
What this does not explain, however, is why the article still insists on inferring that Pepperdine is WITHIN Malibu:
Parking is difficult relative to the average university, however. This is a result of the small size of the campus and limited room for building (not to mention strict building codes from the city of Malibu, and other governmental and political organizations in the Malibu region).
If anything, the university would be restricted by the governing body of Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, as well as the Coastal Commission, of course.
- Eric 07:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That is an good analysis of the situation. Less than half of the area once known as "Malibu" was incorporated within the city limits, and the other areas are poorly identified. Pepperdine did not want to be included in the city and so it is still in the unincorporated territory of Los Angeles County. As for your last point, I didn't write that text but I can venture to guess that the university might occasionally wish to build on adjacent properties within city limits. Regardless, since it isn't sourced it's hard to be sure. I suggest that a more accurate, and vague, assertion would be to indicate that building regulations are tight without specifying which government agencies are involved. Unless we have a particular incident in mind we should stick to matters directly related to the university. -Will Beback 09:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the aforementioned technicalities cited in this thread over the years regarding whether Pepperdine is within or external of the city limits of Malibu, it does not negate the internal conflict within the article itself. While the introduction is continuously reverted back to the campus being “near Malibu,” the location accompanied by the coordinates unequivocally is stated as Malibu. Later in the article the campus is described as the “Malibu campus” which is repeated with frequency subsequently.

To make matters worse, a quick visit to www.pepperdine.edu, the official website for the school provides the address of the campus as “24255 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90263.” Is it not safe to assume to that university would not declare itself to be in Malibu if it was not in fact in Malibu?

Furthermore on https://www.pepperdine.edu/about/locations/malibu/ Pepperdine officially write’s, “Nestled in the rolling foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains, Pepperdine University's Malibu campus commands a majestic view of the Pacific Ocean.” On that page they continue, “Living on campus in Malibu—required for Seaver College freshmen and sophomores—is the best way to experience all the transformational academic, social, and spiritual growth that a college lifestyle has to offer.” Thus there is nothing officially mentioned about the school being “near Malibu,” and rather in every instance of locational description on the university’s official website the university is stated to be in Malibu.

What do we do about this? Artslettersperson (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the article could use a bit of cleaning up. The lead is clear that Pepperdine's main campus is not in the city of Malibu (which is true), but there are a couple slips throughout the rest of the article saying it is "in Malibu." I think the best course of action is to correct those to say "near Malibu."
But I'd say references to the "Malibu campus" are fine. The area was known as Malibu long before the city incorporated (indeed, the campus there was known as the Malibu campus for decades before the city incorporated). Also, as you point out, the university's address includes Malibu, which I think is a convenience for the postal service, not a legal statement about its location.
If you don't object, I'll go ahead and change "in Malibu" to "near Malibu." If you think further changes are in order, I'm happy to entertain them, especially if you'd like this to be addressed more specifically in the article itself. Swper (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pepperdine_University/Archive_1&oldid=1173555029"