This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
institutions of higher education usually have "university" in their name but not always--for example MIT ("Massachusetts Institute of Technology"), Caltech, Georgia Tech and Dartmouth College do not use "university". Their presses are considered university presses, and MIT Press is especially prominent. Moody fits right in there. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
MIT does not have the word "university" in its name, but is still definitely a university. Being a higher education institution is not the same as being a university (universities are always higher education institutions, but not vice-versa), and the difference is not just in the name as you're suggesting. I don't know what the precise difference is in the US because I'm from the UK (where the difference is degree-awarding powers granted by the government). I would imagine that if Moody Bible Institute really was a university, it would be stated somewhere in its article. If it is, but its article is just missing that fact, we should fix the article. Otherwise, as Piotrus says, Moody Publishers not a university press. Quietbritishjim (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Why should they determine who goes on Wikipedia's list of university presses? They also list many non-American presses (e.g. CUP, Leuven University Press) despite being named the Association of American University Presses, so clearly their name is not a strict criterion for membership. As you say, some of their members aren't even parts of academic institutions (although they are academic publishers). Quietbritishjim (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
because they are a reliable source that knows a great deal about university presses--who knows more? whoever made up the definition in the Wiki article doesn't cite any sources at all, --probably he just made it all up from the wording. Fact is the AAUP counts numerous publishers who are not nearly as related to higher ed as Moody Institute (eg Beacon Press) Rjensen (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to believe that AAUP are reliable. It's just that some of their members are clearly not university presses, just as some of them are not American. It seems that since they were established they have chosen to extend membership outside American university presses, and that is fine, but that doesn't somehow mean the meaning of those words has changed. If the article on list of university presses happened to be divided into "American" and "non-American" (or other regions), would you seriously suggest putting Leuven UP and CUP under American because they're members of AAUP? That's ridiculous.
The term "university press" doesn't require a source for a definition: it is a press that is a part of a university. If there was a press that was only loosely associated with a university then I could see this being ambiguous, but we're talking about a press that is absolutely not associated with any university. Quietbritishjim (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's look at the dictionary (Random House unabridged) which defines "university" = "an institution of learning of the highest level, having a college of liberal arts and a program of graduate studies together with several professional schools, as of theology, law, medicine, and engineering, and authorized to confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees. " Moody fits exactly. Rjensen (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
That's more like it: we're talking about whether Moody is a university. I already said, right at the start, I don't know what counts as a university in the US. I just notice that Moody's Wikipedia page doesn't mention that it is a university, as opposed for example to MIT's page. In fact there's a box at the bottom, Colleges and universities in metropolitan Chicago, which clearly categorises Moody as "College granting bachelor's degrees and above" but NOT a "University". Is that box wrong? If so, it should be corrected. If not, then Moody Publishers is not a university press. I'm not really sure what the confusion is. Quietbritishjim (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea who made up the template--it does not list any sources or criteria. Of course it was done by Wiki editors and we are not allowed to use Wiki itself as a reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
'"an institution of learning of the highest level, having a college of liberal arts and a program of graduate studies together with several professional schools, as of theology, law, medicine, and engineering, and authorized to confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees. " Moody doesn't fit exactly, it doesn't fit at all, and I think this is why it doesn't call itself a University. It doesn't have a colleet of liberal arts, it doesn't have several professional schools, because it is intended to have a specific focus on the Bible, religious education, missionary work, etc. And there is no official source calling it a university, so I don't see how we can call it that, and thus how we can say it's a university press. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
it has an undergraduate college that teaches liberal arts (such as theology and music), and has a graduate program with work in such areas as Urban Studies and two theology schools (one in Michigan, one in Chicago). The definition of "university press" actually used by the AAUP does not require being a "university" in the first place. So let's please see the RS that Dougweller is using to define "university press" Rjensen (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't have a liberal arts college, it has a college that has some courses in some liberal arts, focussed towards religion, as is its urban studies work. We can't call it a university, which is what I thought you were trying to do. Now I don't understand - you seem to be both trying to say it qualifies as a university and that it doesn't have to be a university to be a university press. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The AAUP says you do not have to be a university to be a university press. That's a highly reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop with this. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and you have ignored, AAUP does NOT say that. If it does, please show me where. All membership of AAUP implies is shared goals. Otherwise you are also saying that Leuven (Belgium) and Cambridge (England) are in America, since their university presses show up on the list of "American University Presses". Do you believe that?
A quick Google for "university press definition" reveals several sources that say, unqualified, that a university press is a press associated with a university. Your edits to the list of university presses article are constructive and appreciated, but that won't change the fact that Moody Publishers isn't one. Quietbritishjim (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Who founded the firm, and what were the circumstances?
The second paragraph of the article, making an unjustified use of the passive voice, says that the "vision" of Dwight Moody founded the subject firm.
Indeed? How did that "vision" found anything? Did Moody himself found it? Or did someone else do so with the encouragement or inspiration of Dwight?
The attached page is supposed to be an article in an encyclopedia, not a piece of marketing fluff containing dreamy expressions and fuzzy generalities.
Already I have enough items on my do list, and I'm not intensely interested in the Moody world, so I prefer not to start researching that matter myself.
However, since others do care about that subject, I strongly encourage one of you or them to find out and fill in.
Also I likewise strongly encourage the use of the active voice, following a simple template: "Blank founded blank by ...."
Please recall that the active voice is usually much more preferable than the passive voice.
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC).