Talk:Bob Jones University/Archive 5

Has anyone noticed that the article opens with "non-denominational, fundamentalist protestant"? That's an oxymoron as protestant is a denomination.

Bob Jones University v. United States

Why the Supreme Court chose it's own independent prosecutor for the case is theoretically unknown, but in context of the actions taken by the Reagan Administration in early 1982, there is no other explanation for what occurred except that the Court wished to ensure that the Administration didn't sandbag the case. I've added another sentence by BJIII to the footnote.--John Foxe 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No women are permitted in the ministerial class

I'm new here, but surely this side note in the "Religion" section deserves to be expanded upon. In my humble opinion, it seems to me to be a controversy.

Many fundamentalist groups in religious organisations ban women from leading/public positions, so this isn't that particular. (Just read the entire article and this place looks to me like the proverbial 'hell on earth'.) Syrion 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that much is easy to see. I'm just wondering why the article has 3 paragraphs of the controvery over using the King James Bible, but nothing over the exclusion of women in these classes. Makes me wonder what is taught in those classes so is sooooo powerful that the feeble minds of women must be excluded (BTW, I'm a guy). I'm not fan of "BJ" University, but why would women take classes there for a vocation they'll never follow? Nobody's saying anything in those classes is "soooo powerful that the feeble minds of women must be excluded," so portraying these guys like that actually works against your position. Always present your opponent in his/her best light so that you can't be charged with fallacious argument, or else you fail as you did here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. No one is taking any position on it; someone simply wrote that sentence at some point in time. Wikipedia is written by YOU: you're welcome to do some research on it and add three paragraphs about the subject, as long as those three paragraphs are well-sourced and of a neutral point-of-view. Wikipedia articles are also not places to publish your own analysis of an institution's policies (discussion on this talk page is fine, but not in the article), but they are places to write summaries of published arguments about these policies. So if you can find a newspaper article, magazine story, article in a journal, opinion piece, or whatever that criticizes the policy, then you're welcome to include that in the article, as long as it is factual, accurate, and well-sourced and you do not editorialize what you write. cluth (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A majority of Christian groups don't have female pastors so this isn't exclusive to BJ. Saksjn (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Science

One member of the science faculty does have a degree in astro-physics and has published numerous papers in the field. Anthropology and archeology are not taught in the science department but through the Bible and social science divisions.--John Foxe 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I eliminated anthropology and archaeology from the article because listing them under "Science" might lead to the incorrect conclusion that those subjects were taught in the science department.

One member of the science department, Ron Samec, does have a degree in astronomy[1]; the other subjects are not taught in the science department (does any science department teach anthropology?), so there's no reason why members of the science department should have degrees in them. Members of the science department don't have Ph.D.s in history or music either.--John Foxe 10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

On the website, Dr. Samec is listed as a physicist, not an astrophysicist, which was the source of the confusion. And yes, most research universities do have archeology and anthropology degrees (although archeology is usually a sub-discipline of anthro), and the anthropology department falls under the auspices of the natural sciences department (increasingly, anthropology requires a mastery of biology). It's very difficult to square a belief in creationism with the fact that Cherokee Indians lived in the Americas 10,000 years before Adam and Eve (to use but one example), and I think mentioning a lack of expertise or even basic training in fields such as geology and anthropology is germane to the discussion. Bynoceros 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Bynoceros

Could you provide a source for "the anthropology department falls under the auspices of the natural sciences department"? As far as I know it's generally considered a social science ("Yale University's Department of Anthropology has been home to some of the world's foremost social scientists"[2]), and it appears to be in this context that BJU offers anthropology (as part of the International Studies degree taught by its Division of Social Studies[3]; so the observation that BJU's science faculty are not qualified in anthropology seems somewhat unnotable. TSP 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

However, it seems that geology is taught ([4], [5]), at least on a basic level; and, somewhat unusually, it seems to be taught by someone whose postgraduate qualifications are in dental science.... (On the other hand, at least in the UK, it isn't at all unusual for introductory courses to be taught by teaching assistants or doctoral students with no postgraduate qualifications at all, so perhaps this isn't as remarkable as it sounds - I was taught formal computer science excellently by a man whose degrees were in theology and maths....). TSP 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, much of Computer Science is maths, especially pure CS. Having a mathematician teach you about computational complexity is probably better than having a software engineer teach you mathematics ("you came up with the wrong number, but you did it on schedule, so that's a pass"). Its different from saying your university teaches 'science' and then not following mainstream evidence-driven scientific processes. There's not enough info in this article to make that judgement here; one would hope the US university accreditation process worries about such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism revert

• I've reverted the page to its pre-vandalized state. Some sections were duplicated in the prior revert, and it seemed easier just to do another reversion.--John Foxe 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This part of the site has been receiving A LOT of vandalism. Please refrain from doing so, everyone. --DoctorFociWhom 03:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Trivia" tag

On 25 May 2007, Android Mouse Bot 3 tagged the section "Mentions in popular culture" with a "trivia" tag. A lot of the material in the section certainly is. Yet much of it also speaks to how BJU is perceived in the larger, non-fundamentalist world without the necessity of the article dignifying such a gaggle of weak jokes enough to treat them as serious commentary. I've removed the bot tag, but I'd also welcome other opinions.--John Foxe 10:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This concerns the trivia guideline: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Wikipedia:Handling trivia is an essay on how to improve articles with trivia sections. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles is an essay dealing with this exact situation. It says:

• There is ongoing debate about whether such lists are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. ...Officially, such sections are discouraged but not forbidden;

I think the cultural references section of this article is reasonably compact, and that no major changes are required. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bot adding "trivia" template to articles ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

TRACCS accreditation

I've removed an edit about BJU's accreditation because it was tendentious. There has never been a suggestion since BJU was accredited by TRACCs that it has been racially or ethnically discriminatory.--John Foxe 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about BJU's being discriminatory, nor was I saying anything that wasn't thoroughly referenced or completely true. Is BJU discriminatory? I don't know. Nobody knows, because their accrediting body (TRACS) doesn't require them to provide evidence either way. The accrediting body itself, TRACS, is questionable. I think it's important to include factual information about the accrediting body in the section covering BJU's accreditation. TRACS has had trouble in the past and is an accrediting body with a controversial history and questionable policies. The accreditation section as you've edited it is highly biased (i.e., positively slanted in favour of BJU), and I'll have to flag it as such if these referenced, factual edits are deleted again.--HeyKerriAnn 22:44 30 May 2007 (GMT)

TRACS started off in a pretty slipshod way, but the accreditation process is not "questionable" today. It's quite a rigorous process; and accreditation by TRACS put BJU on all the necessary U.S. government lists. The BJU page is not a place to attack an accrediting organization. That's why we have links.--John Foxe 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There were no "attacks" in what I wrote... only documented facts. Labeling referenced facts as "attacks" seems a bit overly defensive. I'm sorry, but I've now flagged this section as potentially biased. I'm not criticising the accreditation *process*--I'm sure that it's rigourous, but the standards that BJU must meet to be accredited by TRACS are questionable and not at all useful in determining whether BJU is still actively discriminatory--and that was my point, and it's useful information for people (such as potential students) to know. Everything I wrote is completely fair and belongs in this section. For example, I said nothing about the "suggestion" that BJU's discriminatory policies were historically what kept it from seeking and receiving accreditation in the past (as opposed to Dr. Bob's simply not desiring accreditation, which is what is currently given in this section as the sole reason), because I would have no documentation to support such a claim.

BTW, in the interest of disclosure, here's the text I added (twice) to this section only to have it swiftly deleted:

TRACS was established in 1979, nine years after Bob Jones lost its tax-exempt status in the Supreme Court as a result of its racially discriminatory policies ([6]). TRACS requires only that any institution it accredits provide "a written statement of its policy on nondiscrimination including (but not necessarily limited to) race, sex, and national origin, based on biblical standards." There is no requirement for accountability or the provision of evidence of enforcement of the stated policy, and the exact meaning of the "biblical standards" upon which the policy is based is open to the interpretation of the individual institution (http://www.tracs.org/standards.htm).

--Heykerriann 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several logical problems with the above paragraph.

1. The assumption that academic accrediting organizations in the United States regularly monitor discrimination on American campuses. They don't.

2. The assumption that there is no independent oversight of BJU's conduct. BJU receives far more media attention than the average American institution of higher education. Whenever there's smoke at BJU, there will be reporters, even when there's no fire. The media are a far more reliable gauge to determining possible discrimination at BJU than any accrediting organization could be.

3. An untruth—that BJU continues to be racially discriminatory—is implied by insinuation. To give a personal example, I could say that the uncertain policies of Wikipedia regarding visual uploads make it difficult to determine whether photos of a certain female editor's naked body are suitable for viewing. It doesn't take much imagination to understand what I've implied by that statement, although there's nothing untrue about it.

4. The belief that because something is true, it is thereby relevant. Recently BJU drastically restricted access to its campus. I know this because I can see via webcam that the main entrance is completely blocked due to construction. The information about campus restriction is true but irrelevant.

5. The belief that nothing changes. Fifteen years ago, the Irish Republic was an economic basketcase. Today it's a powerhouse. The assumption of the above paragraph is that if fifteen years ago, BJU was racially discriminatory or that TRACS was a slipshod organization, then it must be so today.

If you believe that the current standards of TRACS are a problem, then the place to address that concern is the TRACS article, not the BJU article.--John Foxe 08:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hose

It may very well be that BJU has changed its regulation on the wearing of hose. Nevertheless, the rule as posted here on the University's website says otherwise. The safest course is to drop the mention of hose until the anonymous editor's information about the rule change can be documented.--John Foxe 10:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please correct this usage. 'Hose' is a medieval term referring to 'stockings' worn by men. In current usage it does not apply to articles of clothing worn by women except, perhaps, when worn by a female actress playing a male character in a Shakespearian play. The correct modern terminology would be 'stockings', 'tights' or socks (USoA: so-called 'Bobby socks'?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.207.187 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

American women do wear hose, notably "pantyhose." Bobby socks have almost nothing in common with pantyhose. --Orlady (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiking boots

Since BJU generally appears to allow female's to wear ohterwise prohibited clothes when required by the occasion, do they allow them to wear hiking boots when going hiking? Nil Einne 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that information is really necessary in this article. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Higher Learning Commission

The following text was added:

The University currently is not accredited by any of the six regional accrediting associations recognized by the Higher Learning Commission.

I think it is kind of ridiculous because The Higher Learning Commission doesn't apply in South Carolina. I removed it; put it back if you can make the case that it is relevant. --Whiteknox 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Billy Graham Controvesy

The first reference to a specific date, is merely that he began to distance himself from that institution in 1957. It then discusses the controversy during the sixties. The last paragraph of the sub-section says that attendance dropped off in 1956-1959, after the controversy. is that "controversy"referring to Billy Graham seeking a "broader ecumenical base" in 1957, or the cumulation of issues during the sixties? jonathon 22:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The break between BJU and Graham was gradual process that occurred between 1956 and 1959. The University began to distance itself from Graham during the preparation for Graham's New York campaign of 1957 when Graham began seeking a "broader ecumenical base." By 1959, the break between BJU and Graham had been made, and it was clear to leaders on both sides of the fundamentalist-evangelical divide; it took another a decade or so for the consequences of the split to trickle down to the average layman. I'd be happy to have your suggestions for improvement if the article is unclear--John Foxe 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is much clearer. jonathon 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentions in popular culture

I have added requested citations to some items in this section and eliminated other uncited items on the grounds that they seemed more ephemeral to me—individual Stephen Colbert jokes, for instance. I'm fine with any of this material being readded so long as it has a citation.--John Foxe (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the references to Rich Merritt's "Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star." BJU is mentioned frequently througout the memoir, and he's started an entire online community of ex-BJU gay and lesbian people. The references are well-cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westie Boy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn star was ranked number on Amazon.com's gay and lesbian genre list in the summer of 2005, is perpetually stocked by Barnes and Noble and is in its 4th printing, a rarity in the modern publishing industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westie Boy (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does the entry about BJU's mention in GQ magazine keep getting deleted? All of the proper citations were included, but it has been deleted twice. - -JBlak788687 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of material in "Popular culture" sections of Wikipedia articles is controversial. My position, that the GQ mention is not notable, is based on the following: "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a passing reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject of that reference themselves responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity, or a government official from a city, publicly expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference. Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference." WP: Popular culture.--John Foxe (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the GQ mention less significant than the Steve Taylor song or the seemingly minor character on LA Law? - -JBlak788687 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think an entire song directed against BJU is notable. I can't think of another case of a college being singled out for criticism in such a way. The LA Law character is a finer cut, although that particular episode was centered around the BJU character. I'm going to remove the latter and see if anyone complains.--John Foxe (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Improving this article

This article is a B-class article, but right now, it's nowhere near being a GA article.

1. The History section is way, way too short, and should probably be merged with the Controversy section in some way.

2. There are many, many unreferenced statements in the article (there are 86 references now, there could easily be 150+ if it was referenced properly.

The content is there, but the organization and referencing is not.

I'm going to try to match actions to words and improve the article, but it's a big job. It would be helpful if the editors that made the many statements that need citations would come out of the woodwork and provide some citations. I don't know if I can find references for them all. Noble Story (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Noble Story. I've been a tutelary spirit here for almost two years, mostly watching for vandalism—which is regular but usually juvenile. Almost everything in the article can be documented from the BJU website or Turner's Standing Without Apology, of which I have a copy of the first edition. If you want to add "citation needed" to things you believe undocumented, I can probably find the reference. Whether this article is GA-rated or not is comparatively unimportant to me; better that it be B-rated but also accurate and well-written. It is that right now.--John Foxe (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'll be going through the article and trying to improve it. Where I can find references, I will add them. If I can't find them, I will add the tag and hopefully someone will be able to supply one. Noble Story (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me.--John Foxe (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that, for the most part, all statements that need them have citations, there are some other things I want to address:

1. Citation style. I really would like to change all the citations to use a template (similar to the one I used in the Bob Jones University#Bibliography). However, that is a big change, and I would just like to consult before I attempt to do that.

I'm indifferent to that change—also computer challenged—so I'll follow your lead there.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I think that all references that say something like "Turner, 234" should include the name of the book it's coming from. After all, in the bibliography section, there are listed two books by the same Daniel L. Turner.

I've deleted Reflecting God's Light from the sources. There are no footnotes that refer to what is basically a brief commemorative volume. So now Turner is just Standing Without Apology.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

2. The lists of student rules. In general, I think that the lists are generally fine, and they don't go one forever and overwhelm the page, but somehow I still think that it would be better not to use a list style. Maybe it would be best to use a paragraph style and/or spin it off into a seperate article (although that may not pass the notability test).

If you check the archived page history you'll find that these lists of rules were argued about more than two years ago. Several times I've thought of making it a separate page like the "List of notable people associated with Bob Jones University" with which no one seems to have had a problem (and which led to about a 50% decrease in vandalism). Another consideration is that virtually copying the BJU rules, as this section does, skirts copyright violation.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

3. I have read through Builder of Bridges and I'm shortly going to expand the history section to include more information about the founding, moving, etc. As I said before, I want to combine the history section with the controversy section. However, I would like to take the "King James Bible" and "Criticism of Catholicism and Mormonism" sections and put it under a "Beliefs" section along with the mission statement and creed.

Builder of Bridges is not the best source for BJU history: it's a biography of Bob Jones, Sr., written forty years ago by the school's business manager, and there are no citations. There are also some errors.

Let me suggest that the history section be expanded but that the "Controversies" section be left alone. One problem with a new "Beliefs" section would be that racial segregation was once a "belief" and now it's not, and the KJV-Only business was not a "belief" until other translations became popular and the issue was forced on BJU. To my mind, the current organization seems to have worked for some time, and I don't know why we should fix something that's not broken.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Really, the controversies are part of the BJU history, and it belongs it that section. Take a look at the WikiProject University's guidelines. Of course, they are not set in stone, but I think it would be best to merge into one section. For the KJV and racial things, they can also be merged into a history section.

On a side note, if you're saying the Builder of Bridges is not a good source, then my hands are tied, really. Is the history by the Alumni Association obtainable online, by any chance? Noble Story (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with putting the "controversies" under the heading "history," but I'd avoid the introduction of a section called "beliefs." I can envision a historical survey of maybe two or three more paragraphs followed by the "controversies" as they are. Readers coming to this article are probably interested in one specific aspect about BJU—often race or politics, sometimes the KJV-Only business. We really don't do those readers a service by attempting to write a synthetic history.

Checking the BJU Alumni Association site, it seems that its periodical, Voice of the Alumni, is distributed only to members and so is presumably not online. Give me an idea about how much BJU history you'd like, the general outlines of what you think should be covered, and I'll write it up myself.--John Foxe (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So, that is the basic outline of want I want to do with the article. If you any disagreements, then please speak out. Noble Story (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I should mention that after an hour of searching both online and through numerous liberary archives I could not locate the cited article #99 ^ "Passing the Torch at Bob Jones U." Newsweek January 29, 2005 it dosent seem to appear on newsweek's site (so the link should be corrected either way) after a look through our liberary archives there was no issue published on january 29 2005 and neither the issue before or after that date had any article on the topic so I strongly suspect the the article as well as the quote that cite it are made up. 11:39 May 5, 2008

The interview turns out to have been a Newsweek "web exclusive" with a now-expired link. So the interview doesn't exist anymore except in the hands of whomever made a hard copy before the expiration date. A good reminder of how fragile electronic information can be.--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Academy

The lead mentions BJA and the homeschool program, but the main body says nothing of it. It definitely should be added in the article, but I'm debating whether to add it to the "Academics" section or the "Ancillary Ministries" section. Before I take the jump, I'll just ask the opinion of others. Noble Story (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A casual reader of the article would expect "academics" to refer to what goes on in college classrooms. BJA, BJJH, and BJ Elementary School are ancillary to the University proper, although curiously they are listed in the current catalog under "Buildings and Equipment." Home school material, distance learning, etc. should be part of the paragraph about BJU Press. They are so listed in the catalog under the major heading, "The Auxiliary Ministries." To my mind, unless there's some reason to ignore the organizational structure given in BJU publications, it makes sense to follow their lead.--John Foxe (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeri Massi book

I've removed the following paragraph, added by an anonymous editor, from the section on popular culture. The addition has nothing to do with popular culture and seems to be simply a book advertisement. My suggestion would be to add any documentation about this issue to the "controversies" section.--John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenic Christianity (2008) Former BJU faculty member and author Jeri Massi has alleged in her book on child sexual abuse in Fundamentalist churches that the leadership of Bob Jones University, while never actively silencing victims of clergy abuse, has known for decades about abuses and excesses against children in prominent Christian Fundamentalist churches and has never investigated, raised a protest, or even given regard to victims of abusive Fundamentalist pastors and churches. Massi defines such behavior, which ignores sexual perversion and outright criminal conduct within Fundamentalist churches, while railing against the same behaviors outside of Fundamentalism, as Schizophrenic Christianity.Schizophrenic Christianity. Jeri Massi, Jupiter Rising Books April 2008.

Homophobia

Someone removed the Homophobia categorization that I recently added to this article, saying many religous and military organizations prevent homosexual activity and BJU doesn't stand out as particularly homophobic. This is a valid point, but I think the fact that they specifically list it among sexual "perversions" as something that is explicitly forbidden based on the teachings of the Bible, combined with the fact that they refused to allow a homosexual alumnus on campus, threatening him with arrest, is enough to make them stand out enough to receive categorization, especially if they BJU is also categorized under "racism" and "anti-Catholicism." Anyone have opinions on this delicate issue? I mean, they threatened to ARREST the guy. Bflorsheim (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For all the attempts of certain mainline theologians to talk around passages such as Romans 1, the Bible is pretty explicit about forbidding homosexual activities (and lots of heterosexual activities for that matter). I know an alumnus whom BJU threatened with arrest, and all he did was use his newsletter to criticize the school for being too liberal! (For that matter, I'm sure they'd arrest Fred Phelps if he tried to enter the campus instead of picket in front of the place as he did a few years ago.) So first put the Bible, Brigham Young University, and the Air Force Academy on the homophobic list, and then we can talk more sensibly about adding BJU.--John Foxe (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And as a note, looking at the roots of the words, it obviously means "fear of homosexuality", and I think that doesn't apply here. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's agreeable. It seemed to me like their actions were particularly notable, but I guess their judgment calls are all Biblical, which is understandable for a Fundamentalist Christian organization... despite that recorded incident of discrimination (the Bible and BYU as entities aren't actively discriminatory and pejorative towards homosexuals as far as I know; their Air Force I'm less sure about). I can also see that the issues with racism and anti-Catholicism are more prolific than the ones about homophobia. I was just wondering to see what others think... and I guess it does make sense to leave it uncategorized. To be clear, though, Noble, homophobia is also defined as adversity or discrimination towards gays, not just fear of them (the term "phobia" is somewhat misleading in that case)." Bflorsheim (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, let me quote the Catholic Jerusalem Bible for Romans 1: 26-27: "That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion." Sounds "actively discriminatory" to me.

That's not active discrimination. That's just anti-gay literature. When I say "actively discriminatory," I'm talking about pickets by the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Matthew Shepherd case, or BJU kicking an alumnus off their campus for being gay. Those are just words, they aren't actively harming anyone, physically, psychologically, or what have you (though many would call them offensive). Bflorsheim (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you say so.--John Foxe (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Does it contribute to the discussion in some way that I'm missing? I'm agreeing with what your original argument. Bflorsheim (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think his(/my) world-view is more conservative than yours (probably, anyway). He would probably disagree with the "actively discriminatory" part. But then again, I'm not him, so don't take my word for it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Bflorsheim. I was just making an (overly oblique) reference to the fact that outside the United States with its First Amendment, words themselves are often considered harmful. So, for instance, one can be prosecuted in Canada for words considered by the government to be anti-gay or anti-Islamic and in Germany and England for denying the Holocaust. I think it quite conceivable that reading Romans 1: 26-27 aloud on some European street corners might get you arrested.--John Foxe (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. What I meant to imply was that the Bible, as a book and nothing more, isn't doing anything to harm gays (et al) directly. Those who use it as justification for discrimination (WBC, Matthew's killers, street-corner preachers, etc.) can indeed be harmful. By the same token, it wasn't the Bible that caused rampant persecution of Muslims and other groups during the Middle Ages, it was the Crusades themselves-- though the standards that the Bible dictates were arguably the root causality for the discrimination of that period. That would be the reason that, like you said, the Bible itself isn't categorized as homophobic while the WBC is. Sorry, I just wasn't quite sure which of the things I said above the obliqueness was referring to. Bflorsheim (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alumni petition

The insertion of material from Please-reconcile.org by anonymous editors verges on spam, an attempt to use Wikipedia to sell a product, in this case an idea. The website itself is anonymous (although the names of the petition signers are given), and it's impossible to know what percentage of BJU alumni would agree with its sentiments. At best this business deserves reference in a footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the second anonymous editor to put the information back in there.  :-) I'm actually pretty active on Wikipedia (mostly style/grammar revision), but I've just never gotten around to opening an account. The website does not give the names of its creators, however its associated Facebook group does mention the people leading the move (i.e., Jonathan Henry, Beth Murschell, and Tim Tsuei). Putting it in the footnote seems like a decent solution, though, at least until the University responds (which they undoubtedly will in one way or another). If there's one thing BJU's sensitive to, it's its alumni. 128.253.67.172 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-cited material

Instead of deletions, please added "citation needed" tags, and I'll go look for the citations. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rich Merritt's book

I believe the attempt to add Rich Merritt's book to the popular culture section is spam, an advertisement. The book and its author are virtually unknown and hardly part of popular culture.--John Foxe (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See editorial assistance Editor_assistance/Requests--John Foxe (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star is widely known in the popular culture; many former BJU students and those associate with BJU have contacted Merritt as a result of it. He has spoken to groups around the world about the book, and about BJU and has been interviewed specifically about the book and BJU dozens of times. He does not need to use this page to advertise this book as you say; rather, it is a legitimate part of BJU history. I believe that the attempts to delete are due solely to disagreement with its content. I can add dozens more sources proving my point. Jonathan Wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westie Boy (talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Many former students of BJU have attacked the University, and Merritt's comments are no more (or less) important than those of countless others. To post what amounts to an advertisement here is spam. The "added sources" need to be made to Rich Merritt's article.--Hi540 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

His story does not "attack" the university. Simply it describes his 14 years as a student there. It's mentioned here because Merritt, who has been defended and attacked as contorversial notable figure, states them in a published work of literature that has received much praise. There are already three sources, independend of the book. Leave the section there and I will add more. Do not remove this section again.Westie Boy (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether Merritt's story attacks or defends the University. His comments are irrelevant to this article. Find a nice blog somewhere and express his views there to your heart's content. This is an encyclopedia article.Hi540 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

The general rules has been vandalized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.79.114 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the two things people know about BJU?

What are the two things people know about BJU?

I am not a mind-reader, but I believe most well-read people know the same two things about BJU that I do.

I think well-read people know it is deeply conservative -- controversially so. It is so conservative that when a mainstream figure merely agreeing to speak there stirs controversy.

And I think most well-read people think they know BJU is unique among American institutions that call themselves Universities in being unaccredited. Now maybe BJU is, unquestionably accredited after all. Or maybe it can be considered accredited, using certain non-standard definitions of accreditation. Either way I believe this controversy should be addressed in the article's lead.

If it is not I am going to have to agree with other commentators that this article seems biased. -- Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What people know about BJU, and what's true about BJU are not necessarily the same thing. In any case, the first sentence of the lede (and the first cited statement in the article) declares that BJU "has a reputation for being one of the most conservative of religious schools in the United States." Furthermore, when Ronald Reagan and other nationally known Republicans spoke at BJU in the 1980s there was no significant controversy. The first true controversy arose only during the 2000 primary season with the appearance of George W. Bush—and with John McCain's attempt to politicize that appearance.

The facts about BJU's accreditation are stated forthrightly in the lede, and there's a section of four paragraphs about it later on. If the article needs more commentary about BJU's accreditation, then I invite you to marshal the citations and join the dialog.--John Foxe (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead states:

BJU is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, an accrediting organization recognized by the Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation...

I looked at the reference, to see where it confirms the assertion that TRACCS is recognized by the Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. No can find.

I remind my correspondent that the aim of the wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth", so what we consider "true" is not relevant, only what can be verfied is relevant -- even when we don't personally believe it to be true. The article, as it stands, in my opinion, simply does not back up the assertion that BJU is properly accredited. Geo Swan (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more about verifiability. I've added a link to the TRACCS home page confirming the statement you've questioned.--John Foxe (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a mention of its past lack of accreditation to the lead. I think this is a notable part of BJU's past, and if a substantial number of people come to the page thinking "Isn't it unaccredited?" it's much more useful to tell them "It used to be, but now it's accredited" than simply "No, it is accredited" (and have them wondering which out of this and the source that told them it was unaccredited is wrong). TSP (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There are four paragraphs on BJU's former lack of accreditation. I should think that would be sufficient. Let those who are interested read on.--John Foxe (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Detail

It appears that excessive detail is given in the college regulations section. For example, take a look at the section on the guidelines for women's clothing. The article goes into the minute details of how they can decide if something is appropriate to wear. This is a general-purpose article about Bob Jones University. We don't need to know when students can wear what types of pants and how many earrings students can have and how to decide if a skirt is appropriate.

Please post your thoughts on this. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As a long-time tutelary spirit at this article, I'd be more than content to see the rule minutiae disappear or be relegated to a separate section like the List of notable people associated with Bob Jones University.--John Foxe (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in relegating it, as it already appears online in full. Yes, reduction to a summary would seem an excellent idea - though it is a well-known and unusual aspect of the university, so it does deserve coverage, I think. TSP (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So what do you think? If I've gone too far, feel free to add some things back in. One thing I've mentioned before about the list as it was is that it probably infringed copyright.--John Foxe (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few more small changes.--Hi540 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)