Open main menu

"Liberty Way"Edit

The content, as added, does not make sense to me: "The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex" [1]. Interactions alone with members of the opposite sex are not prohibited by Christian principles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Some context: AlaskanNativeRU and Winkelvi have been edit-warring to change a long-standing version of the lede from "The school's honor code prohibits premarital sex, attendance of dances and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex" to "The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex." These changes add some pointless fluff to the lede (nobody cares what the name of the honor code is, and the lede already makes abundantly clear that the school is Christian). It's also weird to say that something is "based upon Christian principles" in Wiki voice when it's disputed that these prohibitions are Christian. The edits also removed the fact that the school prohibits attendance of dances (something that the sources deemed notable enough to mention when covering the honor code). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it is better explained in the body of the article. I agree that it is a bit too extensive and should be kept shorter. Maybe something like "The "Liberty Way" is the school's honor code that is based upon Christian principals. The code notably prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex". Again there's no reason the second sentence needs to be there, it might be better severed with a statement that students are required to follow the code or face consequences. Moving specific rules of the code to the body section.
By the way Snooganssnoogans, you have been warned multiple times by multiple different editors for edit-warring on this article (and others) in the past month. Knock it off, how many more warnings need to be given? AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1 - No, Snooganssnoogans, we haven't been edit warring to change the long-standing version. Got diffs to prove your accusation? Good luck finding them. Here is you, however, demonstrating edit warring behavior over the content [2], [3] and then refusing to start a discussion on the content at this talk page. 2 - The Liberty Way honor code of conduct does not prohibit dancing - the source attached to that content states students are prohibited from attending dances (as was explained in the edit summary of the edits you were edit warring over, and you ignored, and then removed that same information with your second revert). 3 - It's not your place to decide readers do not want to know what the name of the honor code is.
I see nothing wrong with the content as it is post-AlaskanNative's reversion of your reversion save for one thing: it shouldn't be said in Wiki-voice that the honor code is derived from Christian principles. "Christian principles" are what's found in the Bible and there's nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of which says there should be an honor code for Christian universities, that no-premarital sex is a Christian principle, nor does it mention private interactions with members of the opposite sex. It's really more likely the honor code is derived from Southern Baptist teaching and doctrine (which does espouse those principles) , although I don't know how we would go about saying that if there's no good source to support it. -- ψλ 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...why not just cite their rules? I also stumbled across this article. In 2015 they made revisions. j/s Atsme📞📧 04:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Text ("Liberty Way")Edit

Thanks for the background. I still find Option 2 to be preferable to Option 1:

  • Options 1: The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex
  • Option 2: The school's honor code prohibits premarital sex, attendance of dances and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex.

There's no need to introduce the proper name of a nn code, and it seems that we agree that the prohibitions are not based on Christian principles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Option 3: "The school's honor code, called "The Liberty Way", requires students prohibit themselves from engaging in premarital sex, attending dances, and interacting alone and in private with members of the opposite sex." -- ψλ 01:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is far better and reflective of NPOV. "... based upon Christian principals" seems to be WP:OR.- MrX 🖋 01:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
How is that OR, when its mentioned in the RS and in the actual honor code. Did you read the source that was listed with this sentence? "Still, the Liberty Way maintains a few more strict, traditionally Christian regulations:" [1] The word Christian is also by far the most used in the page. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Is there an option 3? I feel this could still be worded much better and appropriately for the lede. Perhaps just "The "Liberty Way" is the school's honor code that is based upon Christian principals." and go into detail about the code in the body section. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Complete, better wording, and does not leave the reader wanting more information. I think it's likely true that all private, Christian universities have honor codes for students - no reason why we can't state this one is specific to Liberty U by noting how they refer to it at the school. -- ψλ 01:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - None of the above. It's surprising to see everyone arguing about the Liberty Way when the cited source turned up a 404 error. I've substituted an archive version. I also took out the part about "based on Christian principles", because in the words of the document itself, "Liberty’s community guidelines come in various forms. Some are local, state, or federal laws that must be obeyed by all. Some are based on Biblical mandates or principles that lead us to develop virtues characteristic of a Champion for Christ. Others are just preferences that promote deference to one another while living in the community. However, all are important for creating the kind of university community, we seek to provide." Lots of sources for them - no NPOV reason to highlight "Christian principles", esp. in the lead. I didn't bother to resolve whether the guidelines prohibit dancing, or merely prohibit attendance at dances, and so left it as it was. JohnInDC (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • How can we define "Christian principles" in an objective academic sense? It is more specifically a reflection of Baptist fundamentalist principles, considering Jerry Falwell started out as Independent Baptist. If you compare the Liberty Way to Pathways at Pensacola Christian College or the honor codes at Bob Jones University (which is non-denominational but largely affiliated with Independent Baptists), you will find a lot of similarities because that's the flavor of Christianity that Liberty's policies come from (which is honestly the flavor of Christianity that I personally follow, not that my position means much in the grand scheme of things) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 15:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, you can't. Another reason to leave the phrase out entirely. JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Question - is it safe to assume the honor code refers specifically to on-campus behavior? Atsme📞📧 20:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
No, not without specific evidence. It's very common that colleges apply codes of conduct to off-campus behaviors and activities, too. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2, or 3. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I am relatively new to Wikipedia and after reading the talk page, I understand the arguments everyone is making, but I was wondering if the lead sentence should be stated: "Liberty University asks its students to abide by its honor code, which prohibits premarital sex, and attending dances."? This seems much more reflective of what is actually reported in the article when it says, "It asks students to adhere to an honor code that forbids pre-marital sex, attending a dance or watching R-rated movies." I understand the lead sentence should be short and concise, but I feel like the integrity of the reported statement is being changed in order to do this. Can you please share your insight on this matter? Thank you Jamie853 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


This content seems inappropriate and POV to me as well as a form of commentary: "Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism, the belief that the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. Creationism, a pseudoscience, is taught as a science alongside evolution in biology and earth science classes." Just as content should not be saying in Wiki-voice that certain Christian beliefs (or Muslim beliefs or Jewish beliefs) are false, content should also not say in Wiki-voice that Creationism is a pseudoscience. I see this as a huge violation of NPOV and support a removal of the content, "a pseudoscience". -- ψλ 15:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Settled here[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't look "settled" to me. And I see nothing that indicates the article can proclaim in Wiki-voice that creationism is pseudoscience and violating NPOV is acceptable. Time for an RfC, I guess. Unless an agreement can be made here that the tone and Wiki-voice needs to be fixed so as not to violate NPOV. -- ψλ 16:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPOV? It seems to me that "pseudoscience" neutrally presents the mainstream scholarly point of view. –dlthewave 16:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Content containing "pseudoscience" isn't really the issue. HOW it is presented, in Wiki-voice, is the issue. And that's where there's a vio of NPOV - how it's presented as a proclamation rather than qualifying it as coming from others. Or, we could just leave the word pseudoscience out altogether. Because, really... is this the article to state it's a pseudoscience or should that be left for the article on Creationism? Plus, it's not as if the school is only teaching creationism in their science classes, evolution is also taught. We can, and should, do better. -- ψλ 17:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand that you and a few other editors disagree but there is a consensus that it's proper and necessary to label creationism taught as science as pseudoscience. This consensus is not unanimous but it's very solid so you'd need to do quite a bit to change it e.g., convince many editors otherwise, raise a significant flag such as WP:BLP. ElKevbo (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, teaching that the earth was created less than 10,00 years ago would definitely fall under pseudoscience.- MrX 🖋 17:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Not the point. We can likely all agree it's a pseudoscience. The issue is how it's presented in the article, in Wiki-voice. -- ψλ 17:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it should presented in Wikipedia's voice because it is a widely-accepted fact. The policy is covered here: WP:PSCI. - MrX 🖋 18:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Read the policy again. Categorizing it as such is not the same as making a Wikipedia proclamation. The topic of this discussion is about the tone, the wording, and NPOV, nothing more. -- ψλ 18:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't speak for other editors but I understand your assertions and I disagree. I think the majority of editors who have considered this topic disagree. ElKevbo (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." It seem pretty simple to me. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh, I'm not as much concerned about the wording as the fact that there is a section heading ("Creationism") with two sentences in it. If it is to remain in the article, can we possibly remove the sub-heading and place the text nearer the larger "Academics" heading? Perhaps after the sentence, "Liberty is classified as..." Killiondude (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't have a problem with that. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am concerned about the wording. And now that you bring up the Creationism section, I'm concerned about that as well - I'm more concerned, by putting both of these things together, that the POV and highlighting of Creationism is a poisoning of the reader well against the article subject. That's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. -- ψλ 23:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The POV that creationism is a pseudoscience isn't much of a POV. If you want to argue that mentioning the fact that they teach this as a science in a university is "poisoning the well"--well. You can say that if you like, but then forgive me if I won't accept any statements from you on what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
My goodness, you've gotten unnecessarily rude and attackish lately, Drmies. What's the deal? We have a difference of opinion. Big freaking deal. Just accept that we see it differently then adopt a live and let live attitude. No need to say what you did above re: my interpretation of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Sheesh. Like I said above, my concern is how Wikipedia is saying what it's saying and in its voice, not that creationism is considered a pseudoscience. Surely there's a neutral way to state that Liberty teaches creationism as well as evolution without making it sound like Wikipedia is being judgmental, right? Then that's what needs to happen, not keep it as is it, leading the reader by the hand to a conclusion (i.e., "you, the reader, need to believe creationism is pseudoscience, too!"). It's a religious-based school, they're going to teach religious-based stuff. That's why students go there. The students don't think it's pseudoscience, the faculty doesn't believe it's pseudoscience, there are likely a whole lot of Christians in the world who don't think it's pseudoscience. Why piss them all off by taking a stand on it in the article? And, regardless of your belief that I don't know what an encyclopedia is, I do know it's supposed to be filled with facts, not judgmental opinion and point of view. As the statement is currently written, that's exactly what this encyclopedia article contains. We can - and should - do better. What do you care about more? Building an encyclopedia that contains commentary you agree with or factual statements with a neutral tone? -- ψλ 23:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Pointing out that a pseudoscience is a pseudoscience isn't much of a commentary. Winkelvi, polite people don't call other people rude to their face. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Polite people don't tell a well-educated person they've never met that they don't know what an encyclopedia is. Seems to me if you can't take someone calling your behavior out as rude, and you're going to fall back on what's polite and what's not, you shouldn't treat them rudely to begin with. There was nothing polite about your comment. Nothing at all. -- ψλ 00:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

But saying "my goodness" is sweet, and I accept. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
You neurotypicals are so confusing (and seemingly confused) at times... -- ψλ 00:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't blame NTs - I'm Aspie, and your arguments seem incredibly confusing and confused, as well as taking a non-neutral POV regarding this entry. (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm waiting for you guys to hug it out. PackMecEng (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • My question on this would be what do the references tied to this statement say? Everybody is going to have their biases, but unless the reference specifically says that Liberty University teaches "pseudoscience" (not just creationism), saying that LU teaches pseudoscience breaks WP:OR in my opinion. Furthermore, I'd want such a claim to be based on a solid source, not a source known to have an atheistic bias, for the same reason we shouldn't back criticism of Obama with a right wing source. This is why I think it'd be better to leave it with a wikilink to creationism and if the reader doesn't know what creationism is he or she can follow the link. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 13:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I just looked at the source, and it does not say anything about creationism being "pseudoscience." It does say "Creationism as a course of scientific study is shunned at many universities," but that's not the same. The label needs to come off per WP:OR. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 13:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I've added a source. We don't need a religious source (responding to your argument that the source must not be an atheist), we need a scientific source. The criticism of Obama thing is a false analogy. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It's still a violation of WP:OR in my opinion because the new source says creationism is pseudoscience, but doesn't say Liberty University's teachings is pseudoscience. This is why I think providing the wiki-link is the best solution. There's no need to lose sleep at night wondering whether someone knows whether or not creationism is legitimate because we're not likely to convince someone either way anyway, but in contrast, someone who does not subscribe to evolutionist ideas is somewhat likely to dismiss Wikipedia altogether over this. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 15:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
        • It also violates WP:COATRACK, since the source has nothing to do with LU or its teaching of creationism. Add the source to the Creationism article, where it belongs, not Liberty University. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Liberty describes itself"Edit

A portion of article text read as follows:

"Liberty University describes itself as a Christian academic community. Its stated mission and aims emphasize both the intellectual and spiritual development of the institution's students."

The reference supporting this statement is Liberty's own 2007 Mission Statement - link. An editor revised this to,

"The description of the school is as a Christian academic community. Its stated mission and aims emphasize both the intellectual and spiritual development of the institution's students".

The edit was accompanied by the edit summary, "non-entities don't describe themselves". I changed it back, for the reason that the original was accurate, and correctly identified the source; and because IMHO the newer language was stilted and vague, and written unnecessarily in the passive voice. The editor has asked me to discuss the matter on the Talk page, which I'm happy to do.

A corporation is not a "non-entity". They are "persons" at law, and powerful entities in day-to-day life. Corporations can own property, sue and be sued, exercise First Amendment rights - they are in many, many facets of the law and in day-to-day practice, indistinguishable from humans (aka "natural persons"). It's incorrect then, to say that the school can't "describe itself". That being said, I've revised the sentence to make it clear that these thoughts are found in the school's Mission Statement rather than being utterances of an abstract "corporation". I hope this is to everyone's liking. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion regarding wikiquitte
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Much better. But how about next time you wait until at least one other editor has commented before you change content that's being challenged? It's better form to do so. Thanks. -- ψλ 20:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand that. An editor revised a sentence for a (non-substantive) reason that did not really make sense, and which rendered the sentence needlessly vague and confusing. I changed it back. That's hardly controversial. The editor did not agree with my edit, and politely asked on my Talk page if I could please discuss it at Talk; so I did. You can't mean that we need to take every single revert here to Talk! JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Typically, when a discussion is taking place over a content disagreement, the Wikipedia custom is to wait until other editors have had a chance to respond and discuss before more edits to the content in question take place. And, I'm not sure if you're confused, but I was the editor who politely asked on your talk page to please discuss at this talk page. Which you didn't, as discussion take more than one to occur. And no, I don't mean that we need to take every revert to talk. While there are editors who insist on such ridiculousness frequently and at certain types of articles, I'm not one of them. Is my comment above more clear now, JohnInDC? -- ψλ 22:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't made the connection when I wrote the comment but figured it out afterwards, and just left it. Separately - if you're unhappy because, after reverting, I tweaked the text to address your stated concerns and thereby improve it, then I can't offer you any satisfaction. I'd do the same thing again, and I don't think it flies in the face of any custom or courtesy, but speeds the process. JohnInDC (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
It's fine how it is now, but I think you're missing my point. It's not what you changed it to, it's that you bucked the usual form of collegial discussion and the reason for it by making a talk page statement, not waiting for a response or other input, and went ahead and changed the content being challenged. A bypass of the 'D' in WP:BRD. Which, I should point out, is not policy but a really good guideline. And yes, what you did does fly in the face of custom and courtesy. As far as speeding the process, because there is no deadline in Wikipedia, speeding the process is unnecessary. Like I said above, next time, please plan on doing it differently, okay? -- ψλ 00:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Please stop wasting people's time with this crap. You made a change, it was reverted, it's up to you to then discuss it with the editor who reverted you. You did so, they edited the article taking into account your concerns and opened a talkpage discussion for further input. What you are doing now is trying to score points in some sort of passive aggressive 'I must have the last word' annoyance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you trying to start a fight with me, OID? -- ψλ 01:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Go read BRD Winkelvi. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with OID, this was actually a very quick and civil application of BRD: A change was made, it was reverted and the involved editors came to a mutually agreeable solution. However, in most cases the question of "who reverted what" is beside the point. It's the end result that matters. –dlthewave 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
There was no agreement before the content was changed by the same editor without any discussion occurring. It seems you are confused about the course of events in this case, Dlthewave. -- ψλ 22:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I support the new wording, "Liberty University's Mission Statement describes the school as..." which makes the source of the statement quite clear. –dlthewave 21:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I prefer not to include mission statements, as they are basically marketing slogans. I prefer to go with how independent sources describe the subject. If independent sources describe their self-declared mission, with a reality-based perspective on whether it's legitimate or some kind of Orwellian Newspeak, then that's fine, of course. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverting to preferred version instead of discussionEdit

"There you go again", SS, reverting (diff here) instead of doing the right thing, the collegial thing, the productive thing, and discussing on the article talk page. Such behavior creates bad juju, bad relations, a negative editing environment, a hostile working environment, and disruption. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. -- ψλ 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If reverting should be avoided, then why did you revert Snoogansnoogans in reinstating the OR? Are you saying that an edit that inserts the OR and personal opinion "by liberal news media" is one that should be kept until further discussion? Really? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my point re: all the reverting. That's okay. You have to actually experience or be committing the act in order to truly understand what I'm talking about so you get the point. -- ψλ 18:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Snoogans can be a little quick to revert sometimes but this one is okay by me. JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Close paraphrase in marketing and recruitment practices sectionEdit

This might be a serious copyright issue because the whole section is a close paraphrase of the source, and even if not, such close reliance on this one source to cover the university's sales practices probably isn't a good idea considering the critical tone. Should we rewrite it, or just 86 the section altogether? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


Easily half of this article is based on promotional sourced at Liberty's website, and obvious press releases. Wikipedia sources must be reliable, independent and secondary. Marketing claims from a primary source, whether directly or via press release, are not independent or secondary (and may not be reliable, since Liberty has a vested interest in spinning the facts on some things). I propose to take a scythe to this cruft over the next coupe of days. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That works for me. I recently took a scythe to Liberty Counsel for similar reasons.- MrX 🖋 10:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe the recent edits focus way too much politically and the lede now mentions conservative, republicans, and right wing far too many times to be taken seriously as anything other than a liberal propaganda piece. Non-profits officially don't endorse or get involved in politics. Adding that they teach creationism in the intro is also laughable - its one course out of the thousands they offer and this is the focal point about the entire university? The University president also supporting Donald Trump is somehow listed once again, but this time stating that is white nationalism? AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy to take another look at the lead to see if some material is unnecessarily mentioned multiple times, could be consolidated with other material, or could just be trimmed. But it's critical for us to include the information about the institution's foray into politics because "[n]on-profits officially don't endorse or get involved in politics;" that's what makes the institution's actions so unusual and noteworthy! ElKevbo (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you please substantiate that LU only teaches one course on creationism? In a discussion on the WP:FRINGE noticeboard, I pointed out to you that creationism is taught in biology courses, earth science courses and that it's "woven into many other areas of coursework."[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Our articles reflect what reliable sources say about the topic per WP:WEIGHT. In this case, reliable sources focus heavily on Liberty's political involvement and often mention their teaching of creationism, so we should follow their lead. Whether Liberty offers thousands of other courses or doesn't "officially" get involved with politics is irrelevant. –dlthewave 21:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Removing information about the university and replacing it with news spam and non-stop liberal news publications about politics is not WP:NPOV or WP:Weight. The information about the facilities and campus should not be removed, perhaps we could add more 3rd party sources to enhance these sections but deleting it is wrong. Its one of the largest campuses in the nation (by physical size) and went through an unprecedented expansion and development - how is it possible to remove that much information on this topic. How do you also justify removing information about Miss Virginia being hosted there which just made headlines. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@AlaskanNativeR: If the expansion is truly "unprecedented", than surely you can find an independent source to support this claim. –dlthewave 17:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC) (fixing ping: AlaskanNativeRU) –dlthewave 17:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I would consider many of the details about campus buildings to be trivial, and they fail WP:WEIGHT unless reliable secondary sources can be provided: "There is a laundry room and common (or lounge) room on each floor", "the facility towers over the adjacent Football Operations Center and is nearly as tall as the five-story Williams Stadium Tower", "CEO of (Sodexo), along with other top executives of the company, were present for the food court's grand opening." The beauty pageant may have been in the news but it doesn't seem to be the type of WP:LASTING coverage that belongs in a description of a building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talkcontribs) 06:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Dlthewave is correct. This isn't meant to look like a page on their website about the campus or facilities. I object to the "news spam" comment, AlaskanNativeRU you need to read WP:AGF. I'm not saying that we can't mention that it went through an unprecedented etc, if we can source that we can add it, just not all the details of what was done. I agree that it's misleading to suggest that creationism is only taught in one course, that's clearly not the case. The claim that non-profits don't get involved in politics is also misleading. See for instance this page on the website of Johnson & Wales University[6] which describes the legal situation, ending with " for organizations that are creative and/or flexible, there are many opportunities to be “Stronger Together” or to “Make America Great Again”!" Pretty overtly political. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The Financial Times is hardly a liberal source, unless you live int he right wing media bubble of Breitbart and Fox News. In fact many of the reality-based media sources note the spectacular growth of Liberty U and other fundamentalist institutions in the US. It's a major concern for anyone who values the Constitution and the rights of minorities. I am privately amused at the religious Right's visceral hatred of liberal values, though. One of these days they will open the New Testament and discover that Jesus makes AOC look like Ayn Rand. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
You need some serious help with those views, it's crazy you're allowed to go on here and edit with such anger against the "religious right". Damaging any conservative leaning institution or person is your goal. How about you actually read the Bible and the new testament like the students at religious colleges do. Editors like you is why Wikipedia is becoming untrustworthy. BTW Dem President Jimmy Carter just spoke at Liberty's commencement- how is that conservative. Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty is that not progressive enough for you AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not angry with the religious right, I am concerned by their hypocrisy, their lack of respect for the teachings of Jesus, and their attempts to impose Christian Sharia in the US Guy (Help!) 05:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you revisit your latest edit that removed a lot of sourced information from the entire article. Some of the items removed had independent and 3rd party sources that you were looking for but were blatantly removed. Also the campus went through an unprecedented expansion and renovation with over 1 billion dollars, but no there's no information on the topic (its one of the largest campuses in the nation)- don't think I've ever seen a university wiki page that does not go into some depth on the campus and its buildings strange how this was all removed. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: If you'd like to remove some of the self-sourcing from this article, please be more careful to make a distinction between (a) routine, uncontroversial claims (e.g., number of students enrolled) and (b) unusual, contested claims (e.g., self-sourcing promotional information). Please remember that for a lot of basic information - enrollment, number and type of degree programs, campus size, etc. - we're ultimately relying on self-reported information whether we cite the institution directly or a publication that got the information from the institution e.g., US Dept of Education, U.S. News & World Report. (In fact, I think it's better - more intellectually honest and simpler - for us to cite the institution directly for information that originally came from the institution. If it makes a difference for you, you might want to cite the institution's Institutional Research information instead of public relations articles but it would not be unusual for some media-oriented articles or websites to have information that is more current than what IR or a similar office may make available.) ElKevbo (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Our WP:ABOUTSELF policy applies to more than just controversial claims. One of the requirements for using a self-published source is that "The article is not based primarily on such sources". A number of independent sources are used throughout the article, but some sections are based entirely on self-published sources.
Although many secondary sources do get their basic information from the institution itself, we rely on them to fact-check and establish WP:WEIGHT. For example, the "Integrated Resource Learning Center" section consists of intricate details sourced entirely to Liberty, with no outside context to establish the significance of statements like "Freshmen have a mandatory session in the Curriculum Library to assess basic research skills" and "All of these computers have a high-speed internet connection". Are these remarkable characteristics of Liberty University or are they routine, unremarkable characteristics that apply to most colleges? Do sources like US News and World Report even mention that all of the computers are internet-connected?
An outside source would cover both positive and negative information, including comparisons to similar institutions. Is a 150,000-volume eBook collection impressively large or woefully small? Or do independent sources ignore the eBook collection because nobody cares about it? Although this self-sourced information may be factually correct (although it has not been independently fact-checked), it needs to be presented in a neutral, balanced way. –dlthewave 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Those sound like reasonable objections and criticisms of the article. My primary concern about the edit I reverted is that it removed about 40% of the material in the article in one single edit, including some information that doesn't seem to be controversial at all. I strongly recommend that editors make edits in smaller chunks and use closely related edit summaries for each edit so it's easier for other editors to clearly see what was removed and why. ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
That's because most of the article was basically self-sourced advertorial. And it was discussed in advance - right here. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you please let me know where we discussed why sources like this are not suitable sources for basic, uncontroversial information in the infobox like the university's motto? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Have you read the article? Every claim about this place is inherently controversial, so requires reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
No, not "every claim about this place is inherently controversial." There are certainly many uncontroversial facts that we routinely include in university articles that can or should be uncontroversially sourced to the subject. Much of that information could be probably be found repeated in other sources and if you think it's worth the time to replace the self-published sources with those other sources then you're welcome to do so. But deleting sources from this article only because they're self-published without appropriate consideration for other factors is not helpful.
(I also think that you may be placing too much faith in the willingness or ability of other authors and publishers to fact check some basic information. I don't know of any institution who has had an independent party come to campus to count students or conduct some kind of census to verify self-reported enrollment data. Some of the more sophisticated organizations and researchers do have checks in place to triangulate that kind of information (e.g., compare new self-reported information with historical self-reported information to detect large unexplained changes) but in my experience that is usually done more to guard against data entry mistakes than maliciousness or deception. It would be highly unusual to not take an institution's own word when it comes to reporting information such as the institution's motto!) ElKevbo (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Have you seen this kind of requirement being made in the thousand of other universities article? It isn't possible and all the numbers and stats are mostly self-report (by ALL colleges/university in the nation) to other publications/the government. One of the goals of WP:UNI and WP:COLLEGE is to Standardize the structure of all university pages - which the standard is that we use sources from the accredited university itself - at least for some information. You cannot find one university/college page where this is not the case, and many many many are rated as good articles already. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Any content in any Wikipedia article that is not supported by reliable independent secondary sources may be removed. The fact that self-sourcing in other articles has not been challenged yet, does not change this. And in point of fact I have done the same elsewhere before now. In this particular case it is doubly legitimate as Liberty is highly controversial, acting as an incubator for the American far right as much as a university. As discussed above, self-sourced claims should go, and it's long past tome to do that. So now you can go and revert your reinsertion of the self-sourced promotional material, or find reliable independent secondary sources (i.e. not local papers regurgitating press releases). Guy (Help!) 05:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for making edits to smaller, more discrete sections of the article this time; it's very helpful for other editors!
Please point to the section of WP:RS that says that "Any content in any Wikipedia article that is not supported by reliable independent secondary sources may be removed" (emphasis added); I can't find it. Additionally, please remember that WP:RS is a content guideline that builds and relies on WP:V which specifically addresses the use of self-published and questionable sources: "[They] may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: (a) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; (b) it does not involve claims about third parties; (c) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; (d) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and (e) the article is not based primarily on such sources." Some of the material you've removed arguable falls afoul of a few of these criteria but some of it (e.g., number of academic programs, athletic conference membership) does not.
So policy does not allow you to remove uncontroversial information only because it's supported by a source published by the subject of the article. Nor does common practice support the idea that we cannot use self-published sources for routine information such as enrollment, number and type of academic programs, and number of faculty and staff: All of the Featured Articles about U.S. colleges and universities rely on institutional sources for that kind of information.
If you have objections to specific sections of this article, please raise them here in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Policy is very clear. Self-sourcing is permissible for uncontroversial facts, but not marketing claims. The abuse of self-sourcing for marketing claims in this article has gone on for far too long. I have problems with all self-sourced marketing claims, not just in this article but especially in this article. Any self-sourced marketing claim can be removed without prior discussion, per WP:RS. The Wikipedia trifecta for sourcing is: reliable, independent, secondary. Liberty's website fails the latter two and may well fail the first as well if talking about anything with an objective scientific background. If you think this content is sufficiently important to include in Wikipedia then find reliable independent secondary sources that cover it (not just regurgitated press releases in the Lynchburg local paper). Otherwise we can safely leave the generic marketing bullshit to their own website. Guy (Help!) 05:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm flabbergasted that an administrator believes it's appropriate to edit war to enforce his own personal interpretation of a policy.
The specific material you are edit warring to remove from this article is: "The school consists of 17 colleges, including a school of medicine and a school of law. It offers 297 bachelors, 319 masters, and 32 doctoral areas of study.[1] Liberty's athletic teams compete in Division I of the NCAA and are collectively known as the Liberty Flames. Their college football team is an NCAA Division I FBS Independent, while their other sports teams compete in either the Atlantic Sun Conference or Big East Conference. Liberty's athletes have won a total of six individual national championships.[2]" Are you seriously claiming that the number of degree programs and the institution's athletic conference are "marketing claims" and the institution's own website is unreliable to source them? If so, on what basis are you making those claims? ElKevbo (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Regarding this edit, I agree with ElKevbo: I don't consider the removal to be appropriate. WP:Featured articles about American universities, such as Duke University and Georgetown University, cite primary sources for information about course offerings and athletics. I'd note that both Duke and Georgetown are affiliated with Christian churches, just like the subject of this article. This may be a WP:DUE issue, but it's not a WP:RS issue. feminist (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Liberty University Quick Facts - About Liberty - Liberty University". Retrieved January 11, 2019.
  2. ^ "Liberty University Quick Facts – About Liberty – Liberty University".
Do those universities teach creationism or get mentioned as incubators of right wing fundamentalist thought? Liberty is not like other universities. Its mission is, primarily, indoctrination. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A university has the freedom to teach whatever it wants to teach, as long as it can continue to attract students. And employers have the freedom to decide whether to recognize Liberty degrees as of the same caliber as those from secular universities. But it's not Wikipedia's job to decide. Regardless of a university's political leanings, the number and range of courses a university offers, as well as in which NCAA division their students compete, are basic facts for any major American university. These facts are not promotional in the least.
And I say this as an ex-evangelical atheist who considers Liberty's education to be harmful to whoever attends this university's courses. But the fact remains that Liberty is recognized as a university in the United States, and where the university is not controversial, it should not be treated any differently from any other American university. I don't think any source is disputing the number of colleges Liberty consists of, the number of courses they offer, or where their athletic teams compete. And since there is no dispute regarding these facts, sourcing to the university website should not be controversial. We can't say that everything an organization states is promotional just because some other aspect of the organization has proven to be controversial. We can debate the state of higher education in the United States, whether it's too easily influenced by religion, and whether it requires regulation or a change in culture, but this article is not where this should take place. feminist (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
That's missing the point. Most universities don't teach pseudoscience as fact, and wen they do, they get called on it. There is a mountain of evidence that Liberty's foundational purpose is to turn out ideologically pure religious right activists. The fact that there's a parallel stream of legitimate scholarship isn't really important, every time we self-source, we are risking presentation of self-serving bullshit as if it were fact. And in truth we should not be using great swathes of self-sourcing in those other articles either - the PR can safely be left tot heir own websites. We're here to report what reliable independent secondary sources say about them, not to mirror their own website's PR. The fact that Liberty also happens to be a leading source of creationist pseudoscience and constitution-defying theocratic activism only reinforces the need, for this article, to stick to secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The university is regionally accredited so I'm extremely wary of Wikipedia editors substituting their judgment for experts in judging the overall quality or educational soundness of this institution. It has to be judged within the context of its mission, of course, but that's no different than any other college or university. I am personally opposed to much of its mission but that doesn't give me any reason to challenge its self-published information about basic, uncontroversial information.
For what it's worth, JzG, I also disagree with the use of this rationale for some of the other material you deleted (e.g., the professional theatre troupe that was formed on campus a few years ago) a but I'm not challenging those deletions because there are other valid grounds for making them. In particular, the existence of self-published sources does not establish whether a topic is noteworthy enough to include in an encyclopedia article. But there's no dispute that basic information such as the number of degree programs and the institution's athletic conference are important and should be included in articles about colleges and universities. If you feel strongly that there are better sources, you're free to find those sources (e.g., you can pull enrollment and academic data from IPEDS at but that doesn't mean that you can delete the information wholesale just because you personally distrust the cited source. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia 101: any content that is challenged, must be supported by reliable independent secondary sources. Tat applies to all subjects, but especially to controversial ones. This subject is self-evidently controversial, wit significant critical coverage in weighty sources. Anything that is not covered in independent sources is not significant, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would remind you that the existence of self-sourced PR in other articles is a reason to remove it there, not to include it here. We're supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a promotional gazetteer. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Guy you are way off the mark and have 3 editors disagreeing with you. Can't wait to see you clean up the other 3,000 university articles and apply these same standards. And does it matter if the university churns out "religious right activists", I'm sure other university are churning out "atheist left activists" at a higher rate. Stop with the discrimination. Its a fully accredited (regionally) non-profit university, experts and the acreditors already determined they are legit - we don't need your WP:Original Research in here and your clear discrimination . (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please cite the policy that supports your stance. I'm especially interested in you including the part that explicitly allows you to edit war with multiple editors. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROMO, WP:FRINGE. But hey, why not, you know, just find reliable independent sources instead of self-sourcing this shit? Find reliahble independent sources, you get the content you want and I get the sources I want. Win-Win. Can't find them and you're squarely in WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
You need to be more specific. What policy allows you to edit war to remove uncontroversial information solely because the supporting source is self-published? WP:RS doesn't; this is clearly addressed in WP:SELFSOURCE. I don't see anything on this topic in WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. WP:PROMO only appears to address this issue when it discusses article topics ("All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources") but not the content of the article. WP:FRINGE doesn't seem applicable to this discussion at all unless you're claiming that the number of degree programs offered at an accredited university is somehow a fringe theory.
And you've done nothing to address why you're allowed to edit war over this. ElKevbo (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy. We cannot allow institutions to use Wikipedia for self-promotion in this way. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
In what way is the institution using Wikipedia for self-promotion? Are you accusing one or more editors of working for the university? ElKevbo (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
By publishing promotional material on its website that (presumably well-intentioned) editors are adding to Wikipedia and defending when it is removed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
What is promotional about the number of degree programs the institution offers and the athletic conference to which it belongs? ElKevbo (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Arguably nothing, if it was something very routine and did not make up the majority of the article. I gave up counting the self-references in the Academics section when I hit 25. Are you arguing that's ok? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
We'd have to look at the material on a case-by-case basis and I'm only focused on the material that was removed from the lede that included the number of academic programs and athletic conference. That is the material that JzG has edit warred with multiple editors to remove only because the information is sourced to the subject. Do I understand correctly that you're okay with that material being readded to the article? ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary of the article. The article is hopelessly dominated by self-sourced material. Arguing over the lead is futile until the rest of the article is cleaned up. I would not support adding or restoring anything to the lead until that "case-by-case" exercise has been done. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the lead is not a case of inappropriate use of primary sourcing, even if the rest of the article is mostly self-promotion. Removing appropriate content from the lead while keeping the actually promotional content in the body of the article arguably worsens the problem. feminist (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Well put, thank you. Which is not to say that much of the material could not be covered neutrally from independent sources, but it would not look like it does now. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion opened at WP:RSNEdit

Other editors may like to know that JzG has opened a discussion about this article and its sources at WP:RSN. ElKevbo (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Liberty University. feminist (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for dropping that note, I lost my session (I am travelling in India with unreliable networking). Guy (Help!) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem! ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude self-sourcing. Not appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see how self-sourcing applies here. I made a similar edit at [7]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Promotional is also an issue, yes, but self-sourced promotional content is the fundamental problem IMO. Guy (Help!) 05:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to source "Liberty's athletic teams compete in Division I of the NCAA and are collectively known as the Liberty Flames." to ESPN. Which part of your revert do you actually want removed? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Probably true. Which rather invites the question of why people are edit warring to include it based on a self-published source, rather than finding independent sources. See also this revert, which includes 100% self-sourced claims. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Liberty's self-reported student population of 100,000, which was recently removed from this article, is an example of a seemingly noncontroversial statistic that differs significantly from independent sources. US News, the US Department of Education and Forbes all report undergraduate enrollment in the 45,000-48,000 range, and Forbes also gives a "student population" of 75,756. If the 100,000 figure isn't fabricated, then Liberty is clearly using a different counting method than our reliable sources. –dlthewave 14:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how much reliable sources cover Liberty's enrollment - it may be difficult to determine the exact values of the residential population, the "commuter" population (who primarily attend classes in-person but may also take online courses), and purely-virtual enrollees who may never have entered the Commonwealth of Virginia. I would guess that Liberty's own printed materials include the last group, and US News/Forbes do not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that is the case. It's clearly a self-serving promotional claim, regardless. Reliable sources are used for more than just factual accuracy; they also ensure that we are presenting a mainstream view that meets WP:WEIGHT. If independent sources don't include commuters, online students, etc then we shouldn't either.
The 100,000 figure appeared in our article for several years. How can we ensure that the other self-sourced claims that we publish are not similarly self-serving? –dlthewave 16:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Well that figure of 100000+ appears in multiple reputable sources. If we don't trust the RS to do to proper research OR the university itself like we should than this whole website is moot. The 100k figure is well known it takes a simple google to find countless examples. Enrollment is not something that even needs a source other than the university itself, what kind of source would even attempt to verify that, it's unneeded. See [8] [9] [10] AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
If the 100K figure takes into account commuters, online students, etc., how is that self-promotional? Are they enrolled at Liberty? Are they taking classes taught by Liberty faculty members? Are they pursuing a credential that will have the Liberty University name on it? Then 100K is an accurate figure for the university's enrollment. Have we asked if the enrollment figures at other colleges and universities – cited to their own web sites – include all those student populations? Because I'll bet you they do. And no one seems to have a problem with that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how these numbers are normally added up, but I have yet to find another school whose self-reported enrollment differs significantly from independent sources. –dlthewave 21:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You really don't have to look that hard, first one I check was Harvard and what do you know the self reported number that we use on their wiki page differs from the "independent" source.
[11] [12] there's probably countless of examples we can find within 5 minutes. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Good find. Looks like Harvard's enrollment needs to be replaced with a secondary source as well. –dlthewave 23:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
So here's an example of why it's controversial. Sources say that Liberty's student body is supermajority white. Liberty says its off-campus student body is much mroe diverse. Well, of course, they have an incentive to say that, and we have no way to validate it. This is why I don't think we should use self-published statistics. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
You don't think the demographics of traditional students studying on campus and mostly non-traditional students studying online will be different? How would an independent source be able to identify the racial or other demographic info of the online populace?? You lack some basic critical thinking skills in this case.
By the way Forbes says the school is NOT a supermajority white as it's only 45%. Such an easy thing to Google but you lack any motivation to actually represent this University accurately, how embarrassing for an Admin. [13]

AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on how likely it is, I simply don't trust Liberty's word on it, for obvious reasons. The Forbes source does not actually contradict my point: it does not break out on-campus and remote students separately, it appears to be simply a chart based on Liberty's own all-student figures. I enjoyed the irony of you accusing me of lack of critical thinking skills and an emotional investment in the topic, especially in the context of what appear to be simple unforced errors on your part. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Haha, if anyone is 'emotionally involved' would it not be you. With your clear bias? I'm all for cleaning up the article and finding independent sources (for the items that require it) but your conduct is beyond refutable. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
My "bias" is in favour of reliable independent secondary sources and against self-sourced promotional content. That is also, coincidentally, Wikipedia's bias. And it's a constant source of conflict with organisations that would prefer us to reflect their self-image rather than the independent assessment of them - from alt-med quacks to shonky companies to universities founded in order to avoid reality's well known liberal bias. Guy (Help!) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe mention both the self-reported figure and figures from secondary sources? feminist (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Just use secondary sources. Or, if we think the discrepancy undermines the reliability of the independent sources, neither. Guy (Help!) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Consolidate wording in ledeEdit

I'm looking at the following section from the lede:

Studies at the university have a conservative Christian orientation, with three required Bible-studies classes in the first year for undergraduate students.[13] The university's honor code, called the "Liberty Way", prohibits premarital sex and private interactions between members of the opposite sex.[14][15] Described as a "bastion of the Christian right" in American politics, the university plays a prominent role in Republican politics.[16] Liberty promotes the Christian right viewpoint[17] on matters such as gender roles and abortion.[18] The university teaches creationism alongside the science of evolutionary biology.[8][19]

It really seems a bit much to mention conservatism/republicans/right-wing this many times in a lede paragraph about a non-profit university- which are officially non-political. Liberty although heavily leans conservative and has many conservative speakers, also has liberals and non-political folk on campus , ex) Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders comes to mind in the past few years. I have removed the sentence from the lede "Liberty promotes the Christian right viewpoint[17] on matters such as gender roles and abortion". As it really is just another regurgitation of what is already written. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Throwing in random rankings (without context)Edit

A recent edit added a bunch of rankings for LU programs, but this edit failed to provide the Y in "ranked X out of Y". For example, the edit gave the readers the false impression that LU provided one of the best online programs for veterans (it was ranked #63), however that's 63 out of 64, which means that LU pretty much has the worst online program for veterans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Technically it is tied at 63. So it is both the worst and second worst. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
You do realize not all programs get ranked right? Why don't you take the issue up with US News and World Report that classifies it as the 63 (or whatever) best. Go through any college wiki article and you'll finding countless rankings from US news programs, this is not unique and it's a strange stance to take to not allow it. At this point YOU are doing OR, because I'm not seeing any sources take your stance or wording AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if there is an example, but I tend to agree that a simple ranking of 63 without context is not useful and may be misleading.Naraht (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Center for Global MinistriesEdit

There was an article about The Center for Global Ministries which was an outreach of the Department of Cross-Cultural Studies. The CGM is now dissolved, and there is no mention of either department on this article. I was also not able to find any coverage about the department in independent, reliable sources so I proposed the article about the CGM for deletion last week. User:Atlantic306 felt it would be better merged here than deleted. I cannot determine how it would be usefully added to this article, so I have redirected that page, but left the history alone. If someone feels that the information is useful here, please feel free to add it.  ★  Bigr Tex 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox should distinguish between online students and campus studentsEdit

Given that LU's online students are like 90% of the total student body, it's kind of pertinent to make that clear to readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

per H:IB guidelines it should not include excessive length or detailed statistics, we must also strive to maintain consistency throughout university infobox's. The information about the population details is stated clearly in the first section of the lede and many times throughout the article, as well as it's own section. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Students: "94,000 online, 15,000 on-campus" is not excessive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Excessive length. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." hmm this is probably not related... —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of speechEdit

@AlaskanNativeRU: Freedom of speech is a norm inside the academia, and universities rarely deviate from it. When they do, there is scandal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

is that true for private schools? I understand it would be a topic of discussion if it was a public school run by the government like the controversies surrounding UC Berkeley and free speech. But a private university wouldn't care about that, especially a religious one. BYU or Notre Dame have the same guidelines of implementing standards that protect its religious mission. That's common sense since they are private and target a particular audience. It's not really a freedom of speech issue since that does not exist in any sense of the word for them, which is why I moved the information around. Also the information was just focusing on the school's official newspaper, not anything that prohibits students or faculty from freedom of speech outside that medium, hence why the students were free to make an independent newspaper for the school (which is the norm for most colleges). AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is. Most private universities are places of legitimate scholarship, Liberty is unusual in being, first and foremost, a place of indoctrination. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you know better than the accreditors and regulators, thanks for that... keep your political bias and opinions out of this. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
However we describe this censorship, it's worth inclusion. This degree of control that the university has exerted over content is exceptional and unique, even for a private, faith based university. If there are objections to the phrasing "freedom of speech," perhaps simply describing it as censorship would be a fair compromise. Rytyho usa (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yup, there is a distinction between a private company, like KFC, and a university. I think that generally speaking in the academia they hate censorship most. I know that there are divinity schools wherein professors took a formal oath that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and will be fired if they violate their oath. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It is still included and nothing was removed. There is already a relevant politics and separate speech section in the article so it was moved there. It is just a given that a private religious institution has a right to protect its mission with its own paper... and there's a difference between an official and independent school newspaper (there's no articles about students being prevented from writing about anything they want in an independent medium). I don't see how it constitutes its having another own section when it is already covered being a political event (covered by strictly political papers) all about Trump. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Brainwashing: educational practice disapproved by the speaker. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you point me to Harvard's doctrinal statement? Guy (Help!) 09:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
No, but Boko Haram obviously calls it brainwashing. And so do lots of fundamentalist Christians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Huh? I was responding to AlaskanNativeRU's implicit assertion that their ability to game the accreditation system somehow renders them immune from accusations of indoctrination. Denying that Liberty is first and foremost a place of indoctrination is a wilful denial of its history. That doesn't make it wrong, necessarily, but it is unusual in the context of universities, most of which aspire to be institutionally neutral, and that was the question that was asked. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
As much as I agree with you that Wikipedia sides with Ivy Plus and the National Academy of Sciences, indoctrination is relative to one's audience. Their fan base do not see it as indoctrination, they see it as believing the Truth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes. The idea of objective fact as the basis of human knowledge replaced rhetorical "truth" in the 17th Century, as far as I can tell, but there is certainly a very determined effort among theocrats to roll that back. We do have a term for a period when society is based on religious Truth™ rather than empirical fact: the dark ages. Wikipedia follows fact, not Truth™. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Many people are unhappy with modernism. A large majority of world population has only seen liberal societies in movies or at the TV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The same could be said of clean drinking water. This is not a coincidence. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Promotional self-sourced contentEdit

This was discussed above. The article contains a number of promotional statements based solely on the school's own website. I will begin removing these. Anything that is not significant enough to be covered by an independent source (which requires more than regurgitating a press release, of course) should not be in the article, because this is not supposed to be an advertisement feature. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Reason for revertingEdit

"Jerry Falwell's Liberty University dogged by growing claims of corruption"Edit

Headline in today's Guardian.[14] Doug Weller talk 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Liberty University" page.