Talk:Liberty University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Uncategorized discussion

The table format in the almuni section had gone wonky. When I try to fix it, and show a preview, it looks great. Then when I publish the changes, it shows all messed up. Can someone with some knowledge fix this? Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoaringMice (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm...this whole page is ridiculously biased. If you have a POV, fine, but this is not the place for that to come out. I'm tired of all the non-objective stuff on Wikipedia. There's a lot going on at that place. You wouldn't know it to read this page, though. Would somebody create a legitimate page a la the kind other universities enjoy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.107.112 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the picture under the "Sports" heading. Far from being a photo of the Flames heading into a game, it was pretty obviously a generic computer-generated image of football players.

"Very high academic status"? Do you have a source for this? Dpol 12:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I completed the page from the stub. --Chandler2525 00:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at LU in 1996. As someone who was graduating at the time what I and many of our co alumni thought was very interesting about Dr. Thomas considering his earlier Anita Hill controversy was, respectfully, that his wife was white.Tnpastor (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LU's external degree program now has more than 60,000 students making LU the largest not for profit online degree program in America. Tnpastor (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Why are the only sections sports and entertainment? Does nobody with a degree from this school ever go on to become a notable academic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.207.225 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the sections was untitled, so I added a politics subtitle in addition to sports and entertainment. As far as notable academics go, presumably there are some notable theologians who have attended Liberty--I don't know of any off the top of my head though. Perhaps their seminary has a list of famous alumni. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite its name...

I reverted this a while ago and I'm reverting it again. In this edit Rtcpenguin adds the little play on the university's name which I find rather amusing. However, it is nothing more than an attack. We cannot objectively quantify the liberty at Liberty University and there is no place for insulting the university. Ask some of the admins about neutrality and I'm pretty sure that they'd agree with me... it's just a matter of writing in neutral language, and not attacking language. gren グレン 21:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Debate

According to a google search, there is no such thing as the 'National Debate Association'. While at first, I would assume that they meant the National Parliamentary Debate Association, this is incorrect as they do policy debate, which is different than parliamentary debate. This leads me to believe that claims about its status are incorrect, and maybe should be corrected?

It's called the National Debate Tournament. [1] FeloniousMonk 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A Wikicuriosity

The sentence pulled from the article says that an accrediting agency's recognition was revoked. The provided reference says it is still recognized. How many of these have slipped into Wikipedia unnoticed, by one POV pusher or another. Pollinator 05:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You could have looked at the links and fixed the error instead of making a POV claim. So it was on probation to lose its license for 18 months. You could have put that in instead of removing it all. Now everything is fixed and sourced anyway. Arbusto 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You should mention this to User:Arbustoo. He has been plastering it all over the place, e.g. TRACS, ICR, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Jobs (talk • contribs)

No_ Jobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a confirmed[2] sock puppet of banned User:Jason Gastrich who has a POV problem and issues with anyone who posts any controversy in articles relating to his fundamentalist beliefs. Arbusto 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My post was deleted and called vandalism. It is actually a confirmed news story. LU has been ranked #1 in all three debate organizations. http://www.wset.com/news/stories/0406/317855.html There is the link.

Debate controversy

I'm removing the following section of the article related to controversy concerning the debate team. The entire section is sourced to a blog post. Per WP:RS, blogs can not be used as sources. if someone has a valid source for the material please add it back to the article.

The touting of this by Liberty has lead to some controversy, as the overall ranking included results for novice and junior varsity debates. In varsity rankings, Liberty was twentieth. Excessive media recognition of "the best debate team in the nation" has sparked anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.

Critics have alleged that the Liberty Debate team accumulates points by sending lots of teams to small tournaments while avoiding known debate champions like Michigan State, Berkeley, Dartmouth and Harvard, instead favoring lesser ranked opponents like Kings College, Army and Richmond. [3]''

-- JJay 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:RS. Blogs are not suitable as secondary sources. As primary sources, as a source of what a particular blogger says, they are perfectly acceptable. I've restored the content. FeloniousMonk 01:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I believe it is you who misunderstand WP:RS. The applicable section is the following:

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website...

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane...

Fortunately that guideline has been updated into the 21st century and no long has such absurd absolute restrictions -- not that they made any sense in other centuries either. Just imagine if historians were required to ignore all letters, diaries, etc. because they "may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane...". Of course, historians don't take such writings as authoritative or "reliable", but neither do they treat, say, Pravda that way. This dependence of Wikipedia on so-called "reliable" sources is a huge problem when all of those sources are owned by a handful of corporations with strong vested interests. -- Jibal 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This article concerns Liberty University. To my knowledge, Liberty does not own the website or run the "Culture Wars" blog. Furthermore, the subject is controversial and this is the only source provided. There is also no evidence provided why this blog or Ed Drayton would be an authority on this subject. "Great caution" is not being shown here, quite the opposite actually. The blog is thus not an acceptable source in this case and the material needs to be removed unless a valid source is provided. -- JJay 02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Monk (an admin.) that you don't understand WP:RS. (In your top post you wrote incorrectly that "blogs can not be used as sources.") It's fine to stay as a primary source. If you can show that the work is "sloppy" or "uniformed" then it should be removed. Arbusto 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is obviously sloppy, since it is sourced to a blog post without even acknowledging the fact. If there was any significant controversy, there would be other sources, such as news reports. If it stays, the passge needs to be rewritten to reflect the sourcing. And neither of you seem to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. -- JJay 09:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Just like intelligent design and other contentious side-issues, much the debate and controvery on Liberty's debate credentials takes place in the blogosphere; nothing unusual there. That being the case, the cite and the passage of the article are appropriate and accurate. The facts remain Liberty is ranked #1 only if you include novice and junior varsity debates with varsity. In varsity debate Liberty is ranked #20. [4] (pg 3) Unlike many universities, Liberty emphasizes all three.[5] In earning its points standing, Liberty debated second string teams.[6] (pg 10) Much of the media echoed Liberty's claim of being "the best debate team in the nation," without noting the distinction between varsity and overall rankings (to their credit the NYT did).[7] [8] It did spark anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.[9] And lastly critics like Brayton - himself a former debater - have indeed pointed all this out.[10] Thus, the passage is accurate as it stands. FeloniousMonk 15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Look, I don't really care if Liberty has a great debate team, a terrible debate team, or no debate team. I don't care if the team is a source of controversy or not. I don't care if the article is true or accurate. What I do care about is that the passage is sourced to an unknown blog. If you have other sources that support the assertions that are made in our article than add them to the text. If not, I am going to rewrite the passage to reflect the sourcing to this blog. -- JJay 16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Brayton's writings on his own blog is an acceptable source of what Brayton's views are per WP:RS despite what you may think. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Violates WP:RS for use as both a primary and secondary source. If your argument was correct, all blog postings would be acceptable sources, since they all presumably reflect their writer's views. That is clearly not permitted under WP:RS. -- JJay 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be the best way to put this? Well, let's try the direct approach: JJay, your argument is ill-informed and specious. Both FM and Arbustoo have explained why you are wrong, yet you do not seem interested in listening. One seriously hopes that you'll not be engaging in an edit war or take to being tendentious for tendentiousness' sake.

I'm sure that you'll find FM both quite knowledgeable and quite good to work with so long as you weigh his advice carefully, giving it a good deal of creedence, and that you do not adopt a pugnacious tone. Just a few friendly words of advice. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are a bit late to this, but rather than advice or the personal attacks, why don't you stick to the issue at hand. -- JJay 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed Brayton

• Ed Brayton's bio on his blog is the following:

"Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and businessman from the frozen north. He is a longtime evolution activist and was the co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science and the group science blog The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, and Skeptic magazine."

We have no source that identifies Mr. Brayton as either a "journalist" or "social commentator". I had previously changed the description to reflect Mr. Brayton' actual bio. I will now replace "social commentator" with "evolution activist", because that is how Mr. Brayton describes himself and because our readers need to know something about the people we are quoting. -- JJay 18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/about.php

Why not "former debator" since its about debates and not evolution? It seems you are picking only one thing to choose from (ie you won't put writer because there is no source, yet do we have a independent source for "evolution activist") Arbusto 18:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be to source the whole debate controversy to news reports that might be found in say USA Today or the Washington post. Since there is an absolute need apparently to source this to Mr. Brayton, the best we can do is indicate who Mr. Brayton is based on his bio. Another editor had described Mr. Brayton as a "journalist and social commentator". I have no evidence of this, since it is not even supported by Brayton's bio. I think the fact that Brayton may have been a debator, as you state, and also claims to be an "evolution activist", might not make him the best source to cite on this controversy given potential bias issues. If you want to add "former debator" to the description that is fine with me. It might, though, be a good idea, since wikipedia does not have a page on Brayton, to indicate where Brayton debated. -- JJay 19:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To begin with. blogs are reliable sources about the views of the blogger. More importantly, scienceblogs.com is run by reputable publication, and the bloggers are a carefully selected group. Since you can be pretty certain that the blogger isn't impersonating Brayton, it's fine as a source. Guettarda 19:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this point above. If blogs "are reliable sources about the views of the bloggers", and their views are valid sources for any article, irrespective of the blogger's qualifications (which of course have not been independently verified or vetted) to speak about a given issue, the section in WP:RS concerning blogs no longer has any meaning and should be removed in its entirety. Moreover, any editor could now submit a conflicting viewpoint from a different blog on the very same issue, perhaps to state that there is no "debate controversy". I would point out that our entire discussion of the controversy, which is presented as fact, is sourced to Brayton. We would be far more credible if we sourced the controversy to at least one accepted source. Brayton may be knowledgeable and on the money; he may be completely off base- I have no way of knowing and for now his "views" are wikipedia's "facts". -- JJay 19:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So, might you tell us what would qualify as an "accepted source"? (BTW:I'm sure you mean "acceptable" as Brayton has already been accepted as a source by FM, Arbustoo and Guettarda.•Jim62sch• 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As indicated in my first post above, see WP:RS. Other than that, are you here to discuss my grammar or the debate controversy and potential sources? -- JJay 22:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, since most the controversy over LU debate credentials have taken place in the blogosphere, your suggestion to rely on solely media articles here would have the net effect of bowdlerizing the article. By removing relevant criticisms you'd turn the debate section into a hagiographic whitewash, something I have some concerns about. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For the time being we don't rely on any media articles. We rely on Mr. Brayton. Mr Brayton describes himself as an "evolution activist"- you have repeatedly changed that to "social commentator". We have no source at present that labels Mr. Brayton in this way. This makes me wonder who is doing the "whitewashing" here? Why do you reject describing Mr. Brayton as he describes himself?. -- JJay 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of "most the controversy over LU debate credentials have taken place in the blogosphere" are you having issues understanding? Also, Brayton writes on wide range of social issues -- Church and State, Gay Rights, Law, Liberty, Pop Culture, Religion and the Religious Right -- not just evolution and creationism: [11] And last I checked, evolution and creationism were a subset of the social issues that comprise the "Culture Wars" his blog's title refers to. See: Category:Issue in the Culture Wars FeloniousMonk 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the article does not talk about the "blogosphere". It states:

The touting of this by Liberty has lead to some controversy, as the overall ranking included results for novice and junior varsity debates. In varsity rankings, Liberty was twentieth. Excessive media recognition of "the best debate team in the nation" has sparked anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.

If most of the controversy has been confined to the blogosphere, as you state, then that should be made explicit in the article. Secondly, Brayton may write on a variety of issues. However, he calls himself an "evolution activist" in his official bio. He does not call himself a "debate activist", a "gay rights activist", a "pop culture activist" or a "social commentator". Because he calls himself an "evolution activist" I placed it in the article. You object to that for some reason, but not to "businessman". Why is that? And why do you feel the absolute need to call him a "social commentator"? -- JJay 20:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Jay, "If blogs "are reliable sources about the views of the bloggers", and their views are valid sources for any article, irrespective of the blogger's qualifications (which of course have not been independently verified or vetted) to speak about a given issue, the section in WP:RS concerning blogs no longer has any meaning and should be removed in its entirety" isn't an accurate summary. It isn't a matter of picking "any old blog" - Brayton is "vetted" as such, by Seeds, which publishes the blogs. Since he is connected with a very prominent blog (and contentious one), he is bound to attract attention. If he is claiming credentials which he didn't have, that would have been splashed across the Uncommon Descent (given his spat with DaveScott). Guettarda 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, you have convinced me that Brayton is a notch above the average blogger and my be supremely qualified to be quoted in this article. I would point out that I have had to fight to have the article acknowledge the use of this source. I have further repeatedly stated my discomfort with citing the entire controversy section to the views of one individual, because that is what this boils down to if we do not cite an outside source for the controversy. Finally, I do not understand why one editor is repeatedly removing the description of Brayton as an activist. That is not my POV, it is how he describes himself in his bio (see above), along with freelance writer and businessman. I think the casual reader has the right to know something about the sources we are using without having to undertake their own investigation. When we cite the ACLU, Moral Majority, Wall Street Journal or The Nation, readers implicitly understand that they operate from a strong viewpoint and can judge accordingly. Brayton is an unknown entity, hence the need for some description and "social commentator", frankly, does not tell us anything. -- JJay 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-Blog source for debate team controversey

The mathematician and columnist John Allen Paulos wrote about this in his ABC News column. It is not a blog, it is a column. So source it to here if its still an issue. It contains all the same information (its all in the second half of the story. The relevant material begins in the last couple of paragraphs of the first page and onto the second page.) Brentt 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I've added it to the article. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to know

To what extent are private schools and industries allowed to regulate customer behavior? This is related to Liberty University's code of conduct, many MMO's terms of services, and countless other things. Since it's a widespread practice, just wanted to know if anyone's got the legal precedent or whatever. 69.231.194.171 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

I would just like to share my utter surprise that Michael Tait, Kevin Max, and Toby McKeehan graduated from this school. They are so far from what is expected for the average student at Liberty hello. I think that this is where they each got their passion for God, but none of them, especially Toby, epitomizes the ideal poster boy for this school. They surprise me. Later!!! 70.124.132.176 22:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, none of them graduated. They all left early to start the band. Come to think of it, that should probably be adjusted in the article, since alumni techincally means one who graduates or earns a degree from an institution.

From Wikipedia:Alumnus An alumnus (masculine) or alumna (feminine) of a college, university, or school is a former student. The plural is alumni for men and mixed groups and alumnae for women. The term is often mistakenly thought of as synonymous with "graduate."

All three (Michael Tait, Kevin Max, and Toby McKeehan) were at one point students of Liberty University and therefore are correctly stated as alumni. --Sidewinder314 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Equality Ride information

I'm a bit concerned about the removal of information about the Equality Ride visit. It's a pretty important event not only in the life of this school but nationally.

The Equality Ride is a pretty politically charged event, but I feel the need to restore the text that somebody deleted on the 4th of May. It seems to me that the objectivity of this article has been compromised by somebody who simply doesn't want a blemish on the school. It's true; Liberty University discriminates against gay people. It's true; they kick people out. It's true: they got protested.

It was removed again. I added it back it. C56C 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's important to note that Falwell has allowed people to speak for gay rights on campus (Rabbi Eric Yoffie at Liberty University April 26, 2006). They were arrested for trespassing. There's ALOT more to the background between the Jerry and the group, which someone could help me with adding.

---I feel like I should respond to the gay charge above. It's true if you are caught doing sexual things on campus you get reprimands and it's very easy to be removed from the school if you do it many times. However, the reps are the same whether you are homosexual or not. So yes gay people have been removed, but many more heterosexual have been removed as well. 13:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the gay rights activists were on campus twice in my time there. The first time they were allowed and I heard reports of some students serving them muffins but that might of been a joke. The second time the activist were allowed to wave signs around at the gates but were eventually arrested for trespassing because they kept trying to enter the school. (they were specifically warned)

This page needs work...clean up

This is a very strange page, especially its organization.

• Why are the school's financial past chronicled under "Religious foundation"?

• Why is the controversy concerning its gay students under the heading of "Academics and rankings"?

• Why is the "Quiz Bowl" subheading under "Debate"?

I don't know anything about the university but reading the article seems to suggest its POV in one direction sometimes and POV in the other direction other times. Would some one who has a better idea of the POV discussion going on here please clean up the article? It's not so serious to add a clean up tag but it might have to be added if no one responds....--David Youngberg 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that the "History" heading indicates that the whole of the school's past is unimportant in lieu of some financial controversy. Not to be crass, but could you find ANY other article about a college on this website where someone would make it a point to dig up dirt and post it? Is this really necessary, or could we actually do a REAL article? Come on...

Much more important than any of that -- this article needs to say something about teaching and research at Liberty. Surely, some content is taught and some scholarship is done that can be characterized here beyond the conformity to Fallwell's creed.

I think many of the article's POV issues can be attributed to editors like User:FeloniousMonk, who have been patrolling articles like this and inserting original research such as "the mischaracterization by the media (that Liberty has one of the best debate programs)" without sourcing it, and using dubious sources (such as forums) as an excuse to insert as many criticisms as possible in the article. I'm no fan of Liberty University, but there are enough well-founded criticisms from established sources that this should not be necessary. People like this are only interested in pushing an agenda, so the important thing is to counteract them by getting as many editors in here as possible who don't have a bias one way or the other. Aplomado ^talk 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem displaying "dirt" on the college. That said, criticisms of other colleges should be encouraged as well. The problem comes from the fact that Liberty is so unique so it becomes a focal point for research, research others can cite. Still, that is not reason to remove accurate (or debatedly accurate) information. --David Youngberg 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing section

Removed: The mischaracterization by the media of Liberty having "one of the nation's great collegiate debate programs"[12] has sparked anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.[13]

A) "Mischaracterization by the media" is original research.

B) Forums are not acceptable sources per Wikipedia policy.

--Aplomado ^talk 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. If the media characterizes something incorrectly, which they have here, see above discussion, then it is mischaracterized by definition. The existing cites support this. That the characterization or mischaracterization of Liberty as #1 has sparked anger in other debate leagues is a verifiable fact. That anger was voiced where such discussion usually takes place, in the various league's debate forums. Thus the American Parlimentary Debate Forum is an acceptable primary source for what has been said on the American Parlimentary Debate Forum. FeloniousMonk 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't have a discussion, come to a conclusion and put that into the article. No matter how reasoned you think you might be, that's original research. See: WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F, which says an example of original research is: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source..."

Also, if it has indeed sparked anger, you should be able to cite it with something more reliable then a league's bulletin board, which is not an acceptable source per Wikipedia policy. See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet.

For the record, FM, it is sad statement on you that I should have to explain simple Wikipedia rules to an administrator. The weak qualifications to become an administrator on this site has unfortunately meant that it is being overrun by administrators who don't have a clue what they're doing. Aplomado ^talk 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a policy you have a real problem following: WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 22:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you have a better response than that. Aplomado ^talk 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to continue down that road I sure do, but I don't think you'll like it. FeloniousMonk 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't ask for much. I believe that Liberty has been roundly criticized for its debate competition tactics. Just provide a cite beyond some forum, that's all I ask. When you say things like the "mischaracterization by the media" and don't cite anyone, you're asking for trouble. Aplomado ^talk 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Newsweek debate article

Despite the efforts of our anon friend here to spin this otherwise, 68.192.122.181 (talk · contribs), the Newsweek article of February 2006, [14], is one of the sources that prompted the controversy referred to in the debate section (that is along with Liberty's touting of the same line). That's because the article was factually inaccurate and contains mis-characterizations. For example, it claimed that Liberty was "currently ranked No. 1 in the country, above Harvard (14th) and all the other big names..." and "...competitive at all three levels—varsity, JV and novice." Yet as the article correctly points out, the National Debate Tournament records for 2005 and 2006 show that In varsity rankings, Liberty was only ranked # 1 due to it's junior varsity and novice results, results most schools don't consider. In varsity rankings Liberty was ranked 20th in 2005 and 17th in 2006. This article, and Liberty's marketing dept. taking advantage of the confusion this created for all it's worth, are the sources of the controversy the article descibes. The subsequent articles presented in the second paragraph, ABC News of April 2 2006 [15] and Associated Press of April 8 2006 [16] both cover this controversy and are written in response to it. But User:68.192.122.181 is trying to present it the other way around with the two later articles, the criticism written in April, presented first, and the first article, the source of the criticism written in February, presented afterwards as a rebuttal to the criticism it prompted! This simply will not fly. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have cleaned it up a bit. One article was fairly critical of the program, while the other pretty positive. But anyway, I think it is better explained that the team has performed less well against major universities. Facts are facts and I believe it is a better wording.

Liberty Christian Academy

I think that Liberty Christian Academy actually began its Fall 2005 semester on the new campus (after delaying the start by two weeks due to construction delays), but I don't have a citation for this at the moment. -- Cat Whisperer 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• As a student at Liberty, I can confirm that the above is absolutely correct, since I was here, but I don't have a source, either.

-RHCP

White/Caner Debate

The section on the cancelled Oct. 16 debate is quite biased. As a student here, I've heard both sides, and the section sounds like White himself wrote it. Note, for example, the italicized text.

October 16 of what year? yEvb0 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the word 'posthumously', because it sounded like they had made comments while they were dead. yEvb0 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur bone?

I heard that Dawkins speech. Why is there no other notes in the article about this supposed bone? I'd like to know more about their museum and this issue, even if it has to go in a "Controversies about Liberty University" article.

I agree. The speech is here. I'd like to see more info on this bone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.148.222 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Yhea I watched the video, but do not know if this was a joke in the video, or if it is true, and then the university itself is a complete academic joke.--169.232.125.176 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this might be it. The article is from 1991 in Creation magazine with the hosting website being Answers in Genesis. FGT2 13:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Honorary doctorates?

Should we really have a list of honorary degrees? FGT2 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'm being bold then. FGT2 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There has been a spike in vandalism today, so I have protected the article for 24 hours from new and unregistered users. IrishGuy ^talk 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we noticed it at the same time. Jerm 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) IrishGuy ^talk 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism probably because of increased media attention to the subject with the death of Jerry Falwell earlier today, hopefully once it's out of front-page news the vandalism won't be an issue when the protection is over. --Wingsandsword 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what I am hoping for so I only put on a 24 protection. IrishGuy ^talk 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The sentence in Religious Foundation which states a "74% increase over the past five years" would be served well if we knew what specific years the increase took place.

paul klenk [[User talk:Paul Klenk|^talk 22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bombs as controversial?

Does the incident with the homemade bombs on May 21st really belong in the "controversy" section? I'm not going to change it unilaterally, given this is such a contentious article, but it seems a bit out of place. I mean, the VaTech shootings aren't listed as a controversy. Including the bombs as controversy in this article reeks of the bias so many people complain about elsewhere in this article. I think the other controversies listed are fair, but I don't think a kid with homemade napalm stands as an example of the controversial events that have taken place at LU.

As I said, I'm not going to change it outright at this very moment, as I think that it belongs in the article. However, unless someone has an strong objection, I intend to find a more suitable place for it in the near future. NihilisticMystic 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of equal signs to take it out of that section. I don't know how much it really needs to be in the article. Ten years from now, everyone will remember the Virginia Tech shootings - that's significant . But ten years from now, nobody will remember this thing with the bombs. It's worthy of a WikiNews article, but I don't see how it really matters enough to be here. When I was at Tech, someone threw multiple homemade bombs into the courtyard near our building. While very interesting and shocking to the people in the building, nobody today would really care about it and it certainly doesn't need to be in Tech's article. --BigDT 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with BigDT. Other than the student being a freshman last year at LU, this incident has absolutely nothing to do with the university. The alleged intentions for the bombs were for the Fred Phelps protestors, not Falwell, his family, the church, or even the school. It is my opinion that this incident be completely removed from the page, and all references to Uhl be eliminated as well. Edtva21 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way seems reasonable to me. I don't see any harm in leaving it in, so long as it's not included as a controversy. However, I also see the logic in excluding it completely. I don't feel strongly enough about its exclusion to be the one to remove it, but I see no harm in someone taking the initiative to do so. NihilisticMystic 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That being said, I'm taking that initiative. It just has absolutely nothing to do with the university whatsoever. As stated previously, the only connection is that the suspect was a freshman student last year at LU. Uhl was not even in Lynchburg, VA before the day he was arrested. None of this even took place on the campus of the university, and there was no incident nor intent for use of them on the campus of the university. As stated by Campbell County Sherriff, Terry Gaddy, the believed intent was for use in the parking lot of the Toys 'R Us across the street where the protestors from Fred Phelps' WBC was protesting the funeral of Dr. Falwell. If this must be included somewhere in Wikipedia, it is my recommendation it appear on WBC or Fred Phelps' page. Although, this just doesn't seem like a big enough deal for inclusion and as BigDT said, a year from now, no one will proabably even remember it. Edtva21 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GARGH

What a load of crap this university is.

This should only be NPOV but seriously, any university that has abortion as against the code of conduct is unbelievle considering the name of the university... 202.10.86.59 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

--Liberty is reference to a Bible verse, not liberty to do whatever you want while you are attending a private university. 24.125.103.13 01:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the rules pertain to activities conducted outside the university, during the students private life. I care not for what text the word is used from, the meaning of the universities title is rather contradictory to what goes inside the universities bounds. I would legally oppose if any university tried to fine me for something I done in my private life. 131.170.90.4 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--Liberty has the right to enforce whatever rules it wants on its students. Remember the students are not forced to attend the university, and a majority of us (as I am a student at Liberty) agree with having that rule. J3r0 13:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

J3r0, would that be "consensus"? (Little WP humor there... very little.) --profg 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have the right to enforce whatever rules it wants on its students. Not that it is unlawful to do what they are doing, the university still has to abide by the law, and cannot make its students do unlawful things. Again, so you don't misconstrew my words, Liberty isn't being unlawful here, just downright unethical in my opinion. I would not be at all surprised if Liberty left itself open to legal action with these current rules. 131.170.90.4 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A FORUM. AshleyScripter _{talkback} 03:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not forced? Funny, I know multiple families who told their children that they'd only pay for college if they went to Liberty, or a similar Flat Earth Society approved parody of a university. 76.19.26.248 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Building Update

Under campus life where it states that there are six dorms currently under construction, this should be, (and was before) changed to completed. These athletic dorms were completed this month. J3r0 13:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I tried looking on the website for the status of the indoor soccer field and the ski slope, but could not find anything current. Are they completed? Racepacket (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Academics & Rankings

I've tried to clean this up a bit after recent edits, but feel free to discuss needed changes here. Especially, some citations are needed; plus I removed a non-notable reference (see WP:RS), that was re-inserted once. Comments? --profg 01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral claims to a lack of notability should be supported before removing a source. - Nascentatheist 13:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is about the Radar thing, try reading the article. It's a sarcastic opinion piece, not anything that belongs in a serious encyclopedia. It has categories like "Worst Trust-Fund-Baby College". If you click on the next article after you get to the end, they have a thrilling piece from the intellectual abyss called "100 REASONS YOU'RE STILL SINGLE". They are not basing their "article" on graduation rates, acceptance rates, high school GPAs, professors with Ph.D.s, or any other objective criteria. Strangely enough, nobody has felt this article worth mentioning on the articles for Michigan State University, Bennington College, Cornell University, Virginia Military Institute, Texas Woman's University, etc. Oh, but they aren't Christian schools, so you guys don't hate them the way you do Liberty. --B 04:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, B, you've just removed yourself as an objective editor by violating both WP:NPA and WP:AGF, trying to ascribe motive to other editors (e.g., "you guys don't hate them the way you do Liberty") and trying to turn this into an "us vs. them" issue between Christians and those who are not Christians. Radar is a social commentary site of sorts, very much like TMZ.com, which, you may note, appears as a reference quite frequently in other articles. Complaints and edit summaries that demand that I provide previous references to edits in which I have cited it are nothing short of misdirective; and comparing it to the Onion, which is entirely fictional, is also misdirective and irrelevant. Even so, it would be fair to cite an Onion satirical piece such as this one in an article about the 9/11 attacks as part of the reaction to it. Social commentary and satirical references often appear in encyclopedias on various subject, including at Wikipedia, so there's nothing unusual about such an inclusion in the Liberty article. Returning to the issue of the Radar reference, it doesn't matter if I, personally, have never used it. What matters is its relevance to this article; and claiming that restoring it is "vandalism" is POV. I don't view it as such, and you've made no case that it is. Declaring it so doesn't make it so. Having said all of that, if you can't edit this article with a little less passion, you need to recuse yourself from it, in the spirit of WP:COI. - Nascentatheist 07:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the Radar article, and to me it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of notability. Are Radar's rankings mentioned in the Wikipedia articles of any of the other universities mentioned? -- Cat Whisperer 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, of course they aren't. They aren't rankings. This is a JOKE article. Read some of the other articles ... they are all pseudo-serious. They rank the "Worst Trust-Fund-Baby College" in this same ranking list. Only someone with an ax to grind against one of the schools listed would want to include it here. This whole thing is why nobody on the outside takes Wikipedia seriously - no serious encyclopedia, news service, or anything else would even consider mentioning this "study" except in jest. --B 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as the social commentary angle goes, if is notable at all, it should be along the lines of "Radar magazine thought Liberty University was an easy target and made fun of it in one of their issues". However, putting Radar magazine's opinion in the "Rankings" section of this article is completely unencyclopedic, and should be removed. It looks like there are 3 in favor of removal, and 1 in favor of inclusions. Any more discussion before I go ahead and remove it? -- Cat Whisperer 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I've been beaten to the punch. -- Cat Whisperer 03:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Radar article should remain on the grounds that the rankings are largely a matter of public perception, and like it or not, that is the general public's perception of Liberty. Traffic Demon 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... no. The public perception of Liberty is irrelevant to inclusion of this "article". This is a joke piece and Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. I've looked at your contributions and you have about zero useful contributions to the encyclopedia. Please contribute constructively or not at all. --B 14:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's obvious that consensus here is that Radar lacks notability, and is not a reliable source. --profg 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no reason to include this opinion piece in a serious encyclopedia article. 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.165.122 (talk)

Just a note of interest, LU has voluntarily left TRACS. There is an article on the LU website and they have removed the TRACS link from the LU site as well. 71.206.138.192 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Biased POV article

This was one of the most Biased and POVed articles that I've come across on Wikipedia. There seems to be an Admin who is desperate to keep the bias and POV in the article. I've followed every wikipedia rule in attempting to clean up this piece of trash. I've cited every single change. The blind hate for Liberty is not a reason to turn wikipedia articles into hit pieces. Ghostmonkey57 02:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I've added the POV tag to this article until it can be cleaned up. Ghostmonkey57 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Are you referring to NawlinWiki? NawlinWiki is an impartial admin who does good work for Wikipedia. There's a ton of bias down in the controversy section, but what NawlinWiki reverted was where you added essentially a press release about the facilities. "State of the art" and "brand new" are usually terms to avoid in an encyclopedia. --B 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen another Wikipedia College Article that is as slanted as this one is. My only goal was to start improving it. "Advertising" was not my intent. You see, I can live with your edits, NawlinWiki seemed to want to remove any positive attributes from the article. If you agree that there is is a ton of bias in the controversy section, why don't we work on fixing it. There isn't even a reason for a "Controversy" section in a University Article. There isn't one for very left leaning schools like UC Berkley, so there shouldn't be one for right leaning schools either. This should be a factual article about the school. PERIOD. Not a hit piece. Ghostmonkey57 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The reason the 'Controversy' section is there that whether we like it or not, this University has been controversial in the past, and we should mention that. The information in the Controversy section should still be neutrally-written and factual, however (and I believe it is). As for Berkeley, I'm not immediately aware of any controversies they've been involved in - but if you know of any, and can write a neutral and verifiable account of them, feel free to add it to their article. Terraxos 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree that the University has sought to be a main point in controversial topics. Their founder took on many controversies and spoke publically, showing that he chose to make his University know as taking a stand for what they belief. If the University has a history of controversy that has been the center of media attention, then it's worth citing. There are reliable sources on this! 208.253.81.23 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it. FeloniousMonk 05:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Wikipedia policy is not served by trying to turn an article into a smear piece simply because you do not like the target of the smear. That is precisely what is being done here with this article. There is absolutely no reason to mention controversy in an article about a University. Anyone with an agenda can find a controversy with ALL universities in one aspect or another. This article should present facts about the university without going into a POV smear campaign. The so called "reliable" sources that are cited in the smear section are anything but. We DO NOT have a consensus on the removal of the POV tag. DO NOT do it again. Ghostmonkey57 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I don't think you have a firm grasp of Wikipedia policy. Controversy sections are perfectly acceptable per WP:NPOV. What you want is a hagiography. Genuine controversies involving Liberty exist as evidenced by reliable sources. Unless you can show a specific example as to how these are inaccurate, the sources wrong or are being misused you don't have an argument here; or a justification for the POV template you added. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of things that are not true. I have consistently applied wikipedia policy to my articles here at wikipedia. I do not try to white-wash articles or apply a biased POV. There is not a consensus that this section is unbiased. In fact, other members have consistently stated that this section IS biased. You have no right to remove the POV tag from this section absent consensus. Ghostmonkey57 14:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

• Again, the controversy is something cited from reliable sources. I am sorry that the college has created a reputation for controversy, but that's what Jerry wanted. He wanted to make us bold and stand up. I'm a LU alumni and after having learned of the past of several of his leaders (Ron Godwin) i have been shocked to see that Rev. Moon was connected to the school. So, yes, Jerry taught controversy to his students...if he didn't want it that way, he would not have founded the Moral Majority nor would have gotten involved in politics. He was an outspoken man and there are plenty of credible, reliable sources that prove so. 208.253.81.23 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I just pointed out below that the sources used in at least one section of the controversy section ARE NOT RELIABLE!!!! They are anti-semitic and leftist conspiracy pages, not news sources. These sources have absolutely no right to be included as sources on wikipedia per Policy. Please continue the discussion below under the new section. Ghostmonkey57 17:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Absurd and Biased Sources in Controversy Section

Three sources used in the 1994 Controversy Section, Z Magazine, The Consortium and Watch Unto Prayer are not reliable sources. In fact, Watch Unto Prayer is a radical anti-semitic conspiracy blog!! Their homepage consists of article after article screaming about a "JUDEO-MASONIC NEW WORLD ORDER." This is what we are using as a source on Wikipedia? I am absolutely disgusted!!! I must further point out that someone apparently knew that "Watch Pair" was actually "Watch Under Prayer" and tried to hide it by concealing the actual name of the Source. Apparently whoever first put this in as a source was hoping no one would investigate the link and find out that a radical anti-semitic conspiracy outfit was being used to source at Wikipedia. Similarly Z Magazine and The Consortium are both extremely left-leaning conspiracy outlets. NOT RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES! I am absolutely APPALLED that this has been permitted to go on this long, and as such am removing all of the content sourced under these biased links. Ghostmonkey57 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The following were the previous sources cited in the 1994 Controversy Section: ______________________________________

1. ^ Berkowitz, Bill. "Moon Shadows", Z Magazine, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-01-04.
2. ^ Harold Paine, Birgit Gratzer. "Rev. Moon and the United Nations", Global Policy Forum, November 2001. Retrieved on 2007-01-04.
3. ^ a b Perry, Robert. "Dark Side of Rev. Moon: Buying the Right", The Consortium, 1997. Retrieved on 2007-10-30.
4. ^ Kennedy, John. "Finance: Moon-Related Funds Filter to Evangelicals", Christian Today, February 9, 1998. Retrieved on 2007-10-30.
5. ^ "Jerry Falwell", Christian Media, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-10-30.
6. ^ "Power Elites: The Merger of Right and Left", The Watch Pair, 1997. Retrieved on 2007-10-30.

______________________________________

None of these meet the criteria for a reliable source under wikipedia policy. Several of them were purposely changed in order to hide their true identity. For example, the source: "Jerry Falwell", Christian Media, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-10-30, actually links to the Homosexual Publication "The Advocate." The source: "Power Elites: The Merger of Right and Left", The Watch Pair, 1997. Retrieved on 2007-10-30, actually links to an anti-semitic conspiracy outfit called "Watch Unto Prayer which includes numerous articles on a "JUDEO-MASONIC NEW WORLD ORDER". Hate groups and anti-semitic organizations ARE NOT reliable sources. This is the equivalent of a KKK member quoting from stormfront on an article on Martin Luther King Jr. Under no circumstances would that nonsense be tolerated, yet we actually have people here advocating the use of this biased sources because many don't like Liberty University and/or Jerry Falwell.

I am sorry, but Wikipedia credibility and Policy is not served by linking to sources that are obviously conspiracy groups and anti-semitic hate sites. I am absolutely OUTRAGED that no one bothered to check up on these sources before. I will take this dispute all the way to arbitration if needed. There is no excuse to give anti-semitic organizations ANY credibility whatsoever by linking them to wikipedia as a "reliable source". Ghostmonkey57 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I did a bit of digging. I did a google search and found that the Falwell-Moon connection is consistently touted by one person, "Robert Parry". For those who don't know Parry is a conspiracy theorist who absolutely despises people that he deems conservative. He and a few others were involved in a bogus "October Suprise" Conspiracy regarding Ronald Reagan, and were caught in several blatant lies. (http://hnn.us/articles/4249.html) Game, Set, Match. Parry is not a reliable source per wikipedia policy, as such the 1994 section needs to remain deleted. Ghostmonkey57 17:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

then what do you say of Godwin who worked for Jerry, then went to Moons paper then back to Jerry? There is obviously a connection to Jerry and Liberty ForHisGlory 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I took out the articles by Perry BUT the article by Christianity Today titled "Moon-related funds filter to evangelicals." is an extremely credible source. That must stay. For a conservative Christian source to state this, it makes it very credible! ForHisGlory 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Ok, Christianity Today, Global Policy Forum and, Washington Post are all reliable, credible sources. I suggest just taking out the sources that are not credible, not taking out the controversy that there is plenty of coverage on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForHisGlory (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Global Policy Forum IS NOT a credible and reliable source. The Washington Post is. Further you DID NOT remove the anti-semitic "watch pair" link that I previously discussed here. The information from the Washington Post and Christianity Today article can stay as it's reliable. The Global Policy and "Watch Pair" conspiracy pages ARE NOT reliable sources and cannot stay. The information that is now in the article is sufficient to cover the "controversy" and now includes balance from the Washington Post article and the Christianity Today article. Ghostmonkey57 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

• • thanks for getting that cleaned up. I didn't realize that i left the watch pair article in. By the way, what do you think of Godwin leaving LU to work for Moon at Washington Times and then to come back to LU? 208.253.81.23 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Mr. Godwin. There was nothing in the source saying that anyone had found this controversial. BTW I am a Unification Church member and I often give donations to Christian causes, such as the Salvation Army and World Vision. I have never heard of Reber-Thomas Christian Heritage Foundation. Are you sure that's a UC related organization? It doesn't sound like the kind of name we would give something. BTW2 Robert Parry and Consortium are also used as sources in Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon and other related articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LUO pertinent information

Should all the degrees offered by Liberty University Online really be listed on this article? Anyone who cared could look it up the university's website. I also still think this section reads rather like an advertisement; does any brave soul want to offer to fix it up? (: AshleyScripter _{talkback} 03:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire section and summarized it with one sentence under Academics. I have a feeling few would object to this edit since this talk page gets no action. Ashley _{talkback} 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

US News Ranking

I find the current wording: "The U.S. News and World Report U.S. News and World Report ranked Liberty University a "Tier-4" school, the lowest ranking the publication offers." to be unnecessarily pejorative. I'm replacing it with wording from the article Florida International University, a similarly ranked school. 216.164.33.13 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Two attempts have recently been made to clarify the meaning of the school's fourth tier ranking by "U.S. News & World Report", once by adding "(bottom)" to it and, after that was deleted, by adding "(lowest)". The second addition was also immediately deleted. I was not involved in any of these edits, but they made me curious enough to go to the source document to learn what tier 4 really means. Turns out, it is the lowest ranking. This is a significant fact, and really does need to be presented. Bottom is probably not a good word choice, but lowest seems quite reasonable to me. Since that was found objectionable, though, I will put in (out of four tiers). If someone wishes to delete that, too, I hope an explanation is provided. Tim Ross (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the deletions were made because of the U.S. News and World Report's "ranking." They were made because of the tone. The way they are presented is biased, as it is making it seem like LU is a "second" or "fourth" rate educational institution, when that is not the case. For example, why doesn't the Lock Haven University (a STATE owned university in Pennsylvania, which is also on the "fourth tier" of U.S. News and World Report) have the same remark on their wikipedia article? Or any of the other high quality institutions that the magazine ranks as "fourth tier?" The feeling people are getting is that you are placing this here because you are trying to downgrade Liberty University as being a poor quality school based on what a subjective source (U.S. News and World Report) says, when nothing could be further from the truth. Go to U.S. News and World Reports "fourth tier" or even their "unranked" schools and see what they list. They have state owned, secular institutions on there--and when you visit the articles written about them on wikipedia, there isn't any mention at all about U.S. News and World Report's "ranking." There needs to be consistency. That is PROBABLY the reason why they are being modified and/or deleted. Keep in mind: the article is about the school itself, not about what a magazine says about the school.--Jim Line (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You state, Jim: "The feeling people are getting is that you are placing this here because you are trying to downgrade Liberty University as being a poor quality school...". Which people are those, other than yourself? In any case, if you consider the "U.S. News & World Report's" annual review of American colleges to be "subjective", I think you may be in a distinct minority. You might want to learn a bit more on the topic at Rankings. If the USN&WR ranking is a fact worth noting - and I certainly agree that it is - than some explanation of the relative significance of the comparative level of that ranking is needed. Fourth out of four is much different from fourth out of a hundred. (The fact that some schools have no rankings mentioned, or no explanations, is hardly justification for removing them from other schools. If this bothers you as much as it seems, your edits to add them would be a worthy contribution.) Tim Ross (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue. The overwhelming consensus in the academic world is that the USN&WR rankings are extremely subjective. The fact that a certain subset worships the rankings is irrelevant to the subjective manner in which they are compiled. Further, if the USN&WR are as widely recognized and followed as you suggest, then adding "out of four tiers" is redundant and entirely unnecessary. You can't have it both ways. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting, Ghostmonkey, that you are sufficiently in touch with the academic world as a whole to be able to determine an "overwhelming consensus". I doubt you are correct, but my contacts are insufficient for that level of certainty on my part. The statistics used by USN&WR, though, seem to me to be followed rigorously and impartially, and any subjectivity must be lurking in the formulae themselves. The fact that these rankings are widely known and used does not mean that all or even most of the readers of the article will understand what "tier 4" means, and I am replacing the useful wording "(out of four tiers)" which you deleted as a "redundant classification". Tim Ross (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not have consensus that this belongs. I'm removing it and asking that we keep it out until we can come to a consensus on the need for it. In determining the need we need to consider the fact that this redundant classification is not in the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles. (As has been pointed out by other editors.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, Ghostmonkey, that your stand on this issue puzzles me. One can reasonably search for a consensus over whether a statement is factual or over whether one is significant, but you seem to feel that consensus is needed just because the same level of information may not be available in some other, comparable articles. Not so. No doubt such information is missing from articles on some other schools, but that situation is merely cause to try to improve the others, not a reason to avoid improving this one. It is hard to interpret your diligence in removing any information relating to the relative status of a tier 4 ranking ("bottom", "lowest", "out of 4 tiers") as anything other than cheerleading for the school. I don't object to moving the ranking information from the intro to Academics and rankings, but am unable to find any justification for removing an explanation relating to the number of tiers, and shall replace it. Tim Ross (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As another poster pointed out above, Congratulations, TimRoss, you've just removed yourself as an objective editor by violating both WP:NPA and WP:AGF, trying to ascribe motive to other editors (Ie: "Cheerleading for the school.") Tier 4 is a descriptor in and of itself. It is redundant to place additional emphasis on the identifier unless one is trying to purposely place additional emphasis. The fact that very few other articles contain such classifications is important. Consensus refers to the consensus on the article HERE. Other editors have pointed out that we don't need to have the classification included. Tier 4 is good enough. If you want to Wiki Tier 4 and have it link to an article on Wikipedia, that would be fine as well, but to add emphasis to the classification is not worthy of an encyclopedia content. I am again removing the classification and politely ask that it not be added back again without discussion and consensus. I don't want an edit war here. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I Wikized "Tier Four". Your reasons for wanting to add a redundant classification are now addressed, as an interested reader can now click on "Tier Four" and investigate the rankings further. Why one would need to do this (the ranking classification is standardized) is beyond me, but the situation is fixed without adding a redundant classification into the text. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The logic for your latest change, I'm afraid, is not compelling, Ghostmonkey. Yes, of course one can follow your new wikilink (to the phrase Fourth Tier) to learn about U.S. News & World Report, but the same link already exists about 6 words earlier, to the magazine's name. No information on the significance of a 4th tier ranking, however, is provided for the reader. I've changed the new link so that it points to the discussion of US N&W college rankings under College and university rankings. Even that change, though, while more informative, fails to provide the needed information as to how many tiers are involved, and so I have put that important detail back in, too. (Why, by the way, do you refer to that sort of explanatory language as "redundant", given that the number of tiers is not mentioned elsewhere in the article?) Tim Ross (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add information to the College Rankings article in regards to the tiers. However adding your wording is redundant. Encyclopedia articles use classifications. They don't place emphasis on classifications. Opinion pages use such redundancy. Wikipedia is not an opinion page. Leave the wording out. There is not a consensus that it belongs. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is now addressed. I added the following line into the College Rankings Article: "The U.S News Tiers rank from Tier 1, the Highest, to Tier 4, the Lowest." There is absolutely no reason to use a redundant classification here, especially one that violates WP:Style. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim: I certainly don't intend to make this a personal attack on you. I was just stating the obvious. Since we seem to be in agreement with what you wrote, "If this bothers you as much as it seems, your edits to add them would be a worthy contribution," I am glad to see that you will take the initiative (since you are the one who added the USN & WR "ranking" to Liberty U's wiki article) to go through every school on the 4th teir and add the exact same comment to those schools as you did for Liberty University's. If you are unwilling to do this, then I must ask, "why did you put it on Liberty University's article but nobody else's?" Let's just keep the edits as I put them--with the inclusion of other reputable schools that are also listed as "4th tier"--Jim Line (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, Jim, I didn't put the USN&WR ranking in the Liberty University article or in anyone else's either. Like I said, earlier, though, it seems like fact worth noting. Tim Ross (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was reviewing the page and among other things found one point that, I feel, needs to be addressed. This is the statement "Other schools listed on the same tier and category are Southern Wesleyan University, Bethel College, and Norfolk State University." My question here is why is this here? Beyond the not so subtle attempt to make it appear so that Liberty University is more dignified by showing other schools at same rung issue I see no reason for this at all. If there was an article about a hotel that happened to be a one star hotel and someone supplemented that article by adding lists of other hotels that are one star would we all not see the blatant reasoning for that supplement to the article? Thus I would call that that statement above mentioned is nothing more than an attempt to mitigate the facts and deceive the reader and call that the statement should be removed. Furthermore I would call it so that the fact that some here dearly do not wish to see words like "lowest" or "bottom" as farther reason to be suspicious that those users might not be entirely without an agenda. Halofan101 (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well as no one seems to object I will be making a change to the article on the above subject. Halofan101 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to re-read this entire discussion from top to bottom. The reason nobody replied to you is because we hashed this out months ago. Yes, I do object to your change and my concerns (with others' contributions) are typed above this. This is why I didn't feel it necessary to respond. What I had to say was already here. Please re-read. The other schools listed were for comparision purposes, so others would know what "Tier 4" meant as it related to other schools. Other magazines (Consumer Reports, for example) commonly place other products parallel with their competitors to show the pros/cons and equivalent rankings. You may want to read Newsweeks definition of their tier ratings as well, and they will clarify that the word you inserted (poorest) is hardly what the magazine means. Thanks! --Jim Line (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparing U.S. News and World Reports ranked schools

I just noticed the new sentence which had been added, offering the names of some other tier 4 schools, for comparison. This is not a bad idea, and I have no objection. In this case, though, none of the schools chosen were appropriate for comparison. USN&WR divides schools into 10 categories, and lists/sets its tiers separately in each. The chosen schools were in the category Liberal Arts Colleges (all the branches of big state schools that were listed) or Master's Universities (North) (Lock Haven University). Liberty University is listed and tiered within the category Master's Universities (South). If someone would like to pick some out of that last category, it would make a good comparison; otherwise, the sentence needs to be removed. To save some trouble, here's the full listing of tier 4 Master's Universities (South): Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Arkansas Tech University, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Augusta State University, Bethel College, Columbus State University, Cumberland University, Fayetteville State University, Fort Valley State University, Grambling State University, Liberty University, Life University, Lincoln Memorial University, Louisiana State University--Shreveport, McNeese State University, Mississippi Valley State University, Mountain State University, Norfolk State University, Savannah State University, Southeastern Louisiana University, Southern University and A&M College, Southern University--New Orleans, Southern Wesleyan University, Union College, and University of West Alabama. It is probably not too misleading to pick schools from among Masters's Universities in other parts of the country, although more accurate, I think, to stick within the specific applicable category. Tim Ross (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and substituted the 1st 4 schools from the list into the existing statement. Feel free to make other choices, but lets try to keep them within that same group. Tim Ross (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This newly modified opening statement seems excessively wordy for several reasons: First, I think that " in the same category (Master's universities (South))" is redundant, as the fact that Liberty is a member of this category was noted in the previous sentence, and to readers of the article, it follows that the comparison schools listed fall within that category (which is exactly why it was incorrect to have schools from other categories listed.) Second, I'm not sure that 4 schools for reference is necessary. 3 should provide an adequate picture. As far as school choices go, diversifying the selection and removing all that "A" alliteration would make things more readable. I think the most helpful solution here would be to choose the 3 schools that are closest to LU, either geographically, or ideologically (Southern Wesleyan university, perhaps?) Third, and most important, this entire introduction seems out of place and redundant to me. The USNWR is discussed in the academics section, and doesn't seem to add anything to what was noted in the intro (in fact, the academics section seems to suffer from the same category problem previously described.) All this to say that I have browsed through several university pages over the last few months and from what I've seen, not that many of them mention their USNWR ranking anywhere within the intro. While I don't disagree with including Liberty's ranking in its page, I do think that including it twice is redundant, and such a statement seems more fit for the "academics" section, rather than the intro. I propose that the second paragraph of the introduction be reworded and moved to the academics section, replacing the erroneous statement already there. Here is my new proposed wording of this statement:

The U.S. News & World Report currently ranks Liberty University as a fourth tier institution (out of four tiers) in the Universities Masters (South) category.[1] Other schools listed in this tier include Southern Wesleyan University, Bethel College, Norfolk State University, and others.[2]

This would clear the introduction of comparison information non-specific to the school. Valerianus (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are quite right, Valerianus. There is certainly no need to have two sets of statements on this topic in the article, and your version seems like a good one to me. I've replaced the one at the top with yours, and deleted the second version. Tim Ross (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Democrat Club

There was a lot of misinformation in the section about the Democrat Club. The Club has not been banned from the University, it merely cannot use the LU name nor can it receive LU funds. This has been confirmed by the University President. There is a difference between banning and de-recognition. No matter how one might feel about the decision, we need to keep this article accurate. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Creationism, "Intelligent Design", and evolution at Liberty

The first sentence of this paragraph states "Liberty University supports and works with Young Earth creationist organizations including Answers in Genesis." Thus it is explicitly established that Liberty "University" endorses creationism, a religious position, in its "science" classrooms (and yes, the quotes here are quite intentional). Why then all this nonsense about how students are taught "creationism alongside evolution and Intelligent Design theory"? The Dover v. Kitzmiller case clearly set a legal precedent that so-called "Intelligent Design" is creationism and is most definitely not a scientific theory. Creationism, "Intelligent Design", and evolution by natural selection are not three competing scientific theories; "Intelligent Design" is creationism and creationism is not science. This has been established and reaffirmed by countless court cases in the United States and around the world. Furthermore, the phrasing that "macro-evolution, taught as a hypothesis, is rejected as fact" betrays an understanding of what the terms "hypothesis", "theory", and "fact" mean in a scientific context. This article is clearly being edited by religious users who are sympathetic to the "university's" misunderstanding and continual misrepresentation of the scientific method. It is willful distortion meant to give a veneer of scientific respectability to what are nonstarters in any non-religious proper university where real science is taught and practiced. Wikipedia has an objective obligation to call a spade a spade and just say that Liberty is a private institution where religious viewpoints trump those of universal global scientific consensus. Inoculatedcities (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken 20 classes at Liberty Univeristy. Everything you said in the "sanatizing" of the article is simply false. Liberty teaches evolution as a THEORY (not a hypothesis) alongside of intelligent design. Seeing that I am a student here--and you are not--I should know first hand what is "taught" in the classroom. Please stop placing false statements here. If you can show some kind of reference that shows what goes on inside of an actual classroom as opposed to what a conference speaker said, I'll go along with your changing. In the mean time, let's keep this article truthful and unbiased. If it continues to occur, I'll notify the wikipedia personell of your terms of service violations. Mainly, that you are not referencing anything that takes place in an actual classroom (what is on the exam, what is in the secular textbooks students are required to study and know, etc.) and placing your "opinion" here as opposed to what is really factual.--Jim Line (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:NPOV states that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This is pretty basic, and I think we have all been exposed to this philosophy. Among other things, it means that one's classroom experiences should not be the basis for one's article writing. Instead, the words need to be based on reliable published sources, representing all the different views that are so available. (I count two such views, so far, but don't know if there are good references for both.) Tim Ross (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific sense (see: Scientific theory so you might understand what is meant by this word when scientists use it -- it does not mean "untestable hypothesis"). To give one of countless examples, the theory of gravity is a scientific theory and also, in lay terms, a "fact". This confusion you are having actually highlights quite well what is wrong with how Liberty "University" teaches as "science", to say nothing of your spelling. Furthermore, it is very well-established by legal precedent in the US that "Intelligent design" is no different from creationism and creationism is not science, it is an explicitly religious argument. If you're actually interested (I suspect you are not), you can research the following cases: Epperson v. Arkansas, Segraves v. State of California, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards v. Aguillard, Webster v. New Lenox School District, Peloza v. Capistrano School District, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., and most recently, and importantly, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover. The intelligent design article here on Wikipedia actually characterizes this debate quite well. Perhaps you should read it instead of repeatedly reverting edits by non-Liberty affiliated editors.

As a Liberty student, you are clearly POV-pushing, and I'll gladly involve Wikipedia admins in this matter if you continue to insert your subjective characterization of this matter into the article. Instead, let's attempt to reach a consensus about how best to word this section so that it accurately reflects Liberty's obvious religious agenda with regard to teaching biological science. Inoculatedcities (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In regard to your name-calling (referecing my spelling mistakes--as if I am really taking time to make sure this is written in APA format on a laptop), I have no response because name calling does not prove anything. In reference to your dishonesty: When did I ever define the word "theory" for you to judge what I meant by it? I understand what "theory" is. The earth going around the sun is a "theory." Which is why I clearly reinserted the original information you romoved--and which I did NOT write--because Liberty teaches evolution as THEORY, not a hypotheis-as you assert. A "Theory" is not necessary "wrong," and in fact evolution is TRUE. The original wording you changed communicated that Liberty indeed teaches evolution from a microevolution standpoint. Again, you need to stop putting false statements when you change things here. You need to remember: other Liberty University students and people who don't agree with evolution as you might think it happened (I don't know what you think, incidently) read this. When they see you blatantly making things up by putting words into the mouths of professors at Liberty who don't think evolution ocurred in the ways you may think (again, I say MAY think because I don't know what you think anymore than you know what I think or what Liberty University professors think), they might stereotype all evolutionary scientists as being just like you. In regard to agreeing with how things are worded--you need to keep what you changed as it was written. I did not write it--nor did you. So, my POV is not what's important. I "undid" what you wrote to put back what somebody else correctly put in regard to what Liberty University teaches. Finally, I could care less about what a court says in regard to science as much as you could care less about what a church says about science. A courtroom and a church are NOT science rooms. Even Richard Dawkins disagreed with Stephen J. Gould on points. I vote we put back what somebody else already wrote about what Liberty REALLY teaches.--Jim Line (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your mischaracterization of the word "theory" is evident from your calling "Intelligent design" a theory. "Intelligent design" does not satisfy the meaningful requirements of a scientific theory; it makes no falsifiable predictions (it has no predictive power) and it is not testable. This is what locates creationism and "Intelligent design" as purely unscientific explanations of life on earth. This is the conclusion of all of those important court cases that determined that creationism must be confined to religious classes and cannot be taught as science. It is significant that you write that you "could care les about what a court says in regard to science" in the classroom -- apparently you aren't interested in Wikipedia being a non-biased, objective source of information and perhaps should not be editing here if you feel this way. If such facts are irrelevant to you, you are effectively disqualifying yourself from the conversation.

I am pleased that you did not reflexively delete my latest work on the section. I think as it stands now it is much more accurate than it was a few days ago but I still do not see the need for all of the equivocating talk of how Liberty faculty sincerely make an attempt to communicate the basic ideas of evolution by natural selection and other mechanisms. It is evident that the University's explicit religious stance on all matters (from what clothes students are allowed to wear, to what political party they are allowed to support, to what positions they are allowed to take in their academic papers) takes priority over all other interests. That is the point I am trying to make by editing this section: science at Liberty is restricted and distorted to conform to preconceived religious notions of how the universe operates. At any other post-secondary institution, this idea is laughable and ludicrous, especially with regard to science. Science is not a dogma, a set of immutable positions that cannot be changed by evidence or argument, as all religions are, it is a mutable, constantly evolving collection of ideas that have only one thing in common: the strict methodology applied to eliminate subjective bias and make meaningful inferences about the universe that are universal and testable. Disagreement and falsification of one another's ideas is not only encouraged but is precisely how science advances -- thus the exciting dialogue you mentioned that went on for years between Dawkins and Gould. This is an extremely important point that neither you nor Liberty's administration and staff seem to understand. Please read the article on the scientific method so that you might understand the reason why Liberty's characterization of "science" is deeply, seriously flawed. Inoculatedcities (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

"Disagreement and falsification of one another's ideas is not only encouraged but is precisely how science advances -- thus the exciting dialogue you mentioned that went on for years between Dawkins and Gould."

I disagree. NEITHER of these men EVER "falsified" each other's ideas. Disagreed? Yes. Falsified? No. That is why I did not delete your latest comment. It was actually true--although a bit biased. Unlike your previous one, which was a blatant lie. In reference to everything else--it seems you know me an awful lot based on a few sentences I've written. You must have ESP? What books are on my library shelf? What books have I published? You're amazing, I'll give you that. Dishonest, but amazing. If I need to know ANYTHING about science or scientific method--the LAST place I will check is wikipedia. If your University allows referencing Wikipedia as a "source," then we're all doomed. After all, if wannabes like myself and you can post articles here--that shows how "unacademic" it is. I'll read Gould, Dawkins, Sagan and others to get scientific ideas--which (incidently) every student at Liberty has to read. It is because they are trained to read and understand OPPOSING views. Since you're so quick to direct me in the direction of evolutionary articles, what books on Intelligent Design have you SERIOUSLY investigated? Michael Behe? Michael Denton? I am not saying you have not already--but I am simply asking because I don't know you anymore than you know me. I think your accusation of my ignorance regarding "science" is about as inaccurate at your view of Intelligent Design. In reference to your statements about court cases--if you think a court room is a science room--again, we're all doomed. Churches DO NOT speak for science and neither does a lawyer (unless he/she has a degree in science). I'd encourage COMING to Lynchburg, and sitting down with a science professor (most of whom have earned Ph.Ds from SECULAR Universities). Get to know them, and what they teach and belive. THEN, you can make accurate judgments about them. You don't have to agree-but give them the fairest amount of time to teach you where you perhaps might be misled regarding what they are teaching, especially since they seem very intent on giving Dawkins and Gould's books much attention--seeing that they REQUIRE their students read and understand them. Finally, based on your comments on this page--you don't honestly expect me to sit here and belive that what you added wasn't based on bias? You are quick to judge "religious" people for changing the article based on "bias," but perhaps you are just a little biased? Or,am I wrong here? For a University that is so "wrong and evil and bad," you sure give it a lot of attention. Something else regarding the Gould and Dawkins debate--the second we are not allowed challenging views (INCLUDING evolution), education stops. To not give people in the ID movement a chance to even try to prove themselves, we become book-burners. How can a scientist ever test/prove methods that may support ID if they are constantly supressed by individuals who are scared that their ideas might be challenged? Stephen Hawking even had ideas that were considered "wacky" at first glance--but after a bit of research, people thought "maybe he might be right about this." I don't mind your challenge. The one thing that does bother me is dishonesty. Because what you put here is honest (although very biased), I did not delete it. I'll look forward to meeting you in Lynchburg someday when you're ready to sit down and acutally talk to a professor about his/her beliefs.--Jim Line (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that Gould and Dawkins falsified one another's ideas, per se. What I said is that the attempt to falsify one another's ideas, the spirit of argument and the ability to change one's position when new evidence presents is the hallmark of proper science. This spirit of the scientific method appears to be something you have great difficulty understanding.

Gould and Dawkins had many disagreements over the years as to which (documented, testable, proven) mechanisms of evolution took precedence over others. As I said, it's quite right to say that Dawkins and Gould, despite their arguing, were not in the business of falsifying each other's ideas. This is because the men did their scientific work in very different fields: Gould was a paleontologist and Dawkins trained as an ethologist. What they didn't disagree on is the fact that evolution occurs through well-documented and known mechanisms that are decidedly not supernatural in nature (Gould emphasized the influence of catastrophism, perhaps due to his training, and Dawkins famously elaborated a very gene-centric view of evolution -- but of course you know this, as a trained expert on each).

I pointed you to the article on the scientific method that is here on Wikipedia because it contains some very basic ideas that are inherent in proper scientific thinking, ideas that you've repeatedly demonstrated (with shrieking indignation and CAPITAL LETTERS) that you do not understand one bit. I would highly encourage you to read actual scientists, not religious dogmatists who are intent on pointing out disagreements in the scientific community or mysteries as-yet-unrevealed in the universe and reflexively bleating that the explanation -- by default -- must be supernatural intervention or something equally vague and useless to posit. This is the only point I am trying to make and I'd encourage you to think long and hard about it. This is how real science works and is its very strength.

For what it's worth, I've read Behe and found his confusion and bewilderment about the evolution of complexity to be laughably soft-headed. There is a reason why he is not taken seriously by nearly everyone in the world with a background in these matters. Hint: it's not because he's an iconoclastic genius who sees so far ahead of everyone else.

Did it ever occur to you that if Behe could prove his half-baked ideas he would win a Nobel Prize? That he would be remembered as the biggest thinker in biology since Darwin? That fame and fortune await him if he can actually provide a shred of evidence for his vapid supernaturalism? You seem not willing to concede that the reason he's laughed out of the room in serious laboratories and universities is because he's making a religious argument, not a scientific one. This is why I quoted those court cases to you -- because countless judges, even those appointed by George W. Bush, understand that the argument Behe and his friends at the Discovery Institute (almost none of whom are scientists or even hold science degrees) are making is not a scientific one and is, in fact, a religious one. I don't know how many different ways to demonstrate or reframe this idea so that you might understand that it is my only major reason for editing this article. I just want it to say that Liberty University teaches that religious dogma trumps real science. The rest is just theater and self-delusion.

And when you type your next outraged response here, please indent your paragraphs appropriately so that others might follow along and so I don't have to do it again for you. Thanks. Inoculatedcities (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Creation and Evolution at LU

In response to the latest edit by TimRoss. Here is the quote Verbatim from the News and Advance article: "He teaches both evolution and creation." To put this bluntly, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. The fact is, Liberty teaches it's students BOTH evolution and creation. Other religious institutions do not do this, (Bob Jones, Pensacola Christian, ect...) Other sources, again, VERBATIM: "Liberty teaches evolution in its biology department (necessary for accreditation), but all students are required to take courses teaching young earth creationism." "We teach evolution and creation in the classroom..." "There's nothing balanced here. It's completely, 100 percent evolution-based," said DeWitt, a professor of biology. "We come every year, because I don't hold anything back from the students." THIS is the Biology 101 Textbook used at Liberty University: </nowiki> it is the same mainstream Biology textbook used at many Universities around the Country... Does Liberty University favor YEC? Yes... But you can't pretend that they don't teach evolution... Again you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"To put it bluntly" you're wrong and you're being deceptive. "The fact is", Liberty University is an explicitly religious institution that favors supernatural explanations (creationism in the case of biology) over scientific ones -- and even the citations added by you support this conclusion. The "university" make no argument of this whatsoever and as you noted they likely only bother with a cursory treatment of Darwin and the modern synthesis because it is necessary to maintain their accreditation. David DeWitt claims that he "teaches evolution" but also creationism, the idea being that creationism is some other competing scientific theory. The numerous legal challenges to "intelligent design" and young-earth creationism in the past few decades have established that this is complete and utter BS, which is why they made it illegal to say so in public institutions. Since Liberty is private they are free to teach whatever nonsense they wish but that doesn't mean the "university" doesn't explicitly favor one explanation over another. That's what I changed the article to reflect. Don't beat around the bush when you know this is true. Simply leave it alone. Inoculatedcities (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand how Wikipedia works. The cited sources explicitly state that Liberty teaches Creationism and Evolution. There is simply no disputing that. The quote is VERBATIM from the various news stories. Is Liberty a religious institution? Absolutely. You are also violating Wikipedia rules in reference to your characterization of my edits. You are not permitted to assign motives, and you have to assume good faith. I'll kindly ask you to knock it off, your "conversational intolerance", which appears to extend to anyone who disagrees with you on anything, notwithstanding. Good day! :) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop threatening and telling me I don't know how to edit Wikipedia. The sheer number of your edits on this article (and the fact that you almost exclusively editorialize on the danger of homosexual parenting, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.) raises the index of suspicion that you are, in fact, a Liberty student and should recuse yourself from editing.

By the way, I noticed you've never once edited a basic science article here on Wikipedia. Fascinating.

To rehash what you ignored last time: Liberty "University" teaches their students to reject reason and science when it interferes with their religion -- or, more accurately, to relabel their religion "science" when the real science comes to the "wrong" conclusions about the nature of life on earth. Yes, Liberty "teaches" evolution and creationism but it explicitly endorses the view that evolution is a dismissible secular speculation and that the real explanation is divine in nature. This cannot be disputed. Every source cited by either side in this debate makes one thing clear: Liberty faculty in the biological sciences explicitly endorse creationism (a prerequisite of the job as the Chronicle ad highlights), then turn around and claim to be "teaching the [imagined] controversy" so as to not appear as overtly ignorant or unscientific as they in fact are.

Again, if you would like to talk evidence, proof, specific claims, I'm all ears. That is, after all, the stuff of real science that is taught at proper universities. Inoculatedcities (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You sure do make a lot of wild assumptions, and that's not something that good scientists do, is it? I note once again that you are violating Wikipedia policy by refusing to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and by engaging in personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Again, I'll kindly ask you to knock it off. I also take note of your scare quotes and general demeanor in your responses. Again, I'll kindly ask you to knock that off too. Wikipedia is not a place where individuals engage in flame wars and shouting matches. You have self-identified as a person who engages in a practice that is not conductive to Wikipedia policies. Perhaps it might be better to lay off the "conversational intolerance" and attempt to engage in a more rational and polite discussion? There is no need for you to lay into other editors here. You don't know us. You don't know our motives. Assigning motives and attacking others will not get you far here. The fact remains, whether you like it or not, that Liberty University is an accredited institution of Higher Learning in the United States. They teach evolution in their biology classes along with creationism. You might not like that they teach creationism. I understand that. That doesn't change that they teach evolution as well. You seem to have missed the fact that no one is disputing that Liberty is a religious institution. No one is disputing that Liberty emphasizes creationism. Some of us merely prefer a verbatim quote from a reliable source rather than a POV slant to the article. I'll not assign intent to your motives. It's entirely possible that this is simply an issue that you are passionate about and recognize that you don't realize that your "conversational intolerance" is bleeding out into your posts. I will kindly ask you to engage in a more productive discussion in the future. If you feel that you can't do so, please don't engage me in conversation. I have no desire to participate in a flame or edit war. I'll extend my hand of friendship to you with the hope that you will take it. If not, kindly agree to disagree and move on. Good Day. :) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the qualifier "supernatural" from your last edit. I agree with your other changes vis a vis capitalization. But, as you said so eloquently in your edit summary, we don't need any "POV crap". I don't have a dog in this fight other than to keep the wording neutral. Wperdue (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

If you removed it because it is redundant, then okay. If you removed it because it is POV-pushing to call creationism supernatural, I'd direct you to the Wikipedia article on creationism which begins "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity." Just sayin'. Inoculatedcities (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Look up America

I remember when I was young, we went to see a show called, I believe, "Look up America". I just asked my Dad about it and he said it was put on by Liberty Baptist College. I couldn't find Look up America on the internet, though.Hackwrench (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberty Way

Section on Liberty Way removed due to lack of citation. 208.95.51.187 (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad. There is a copy of the publication online but the university has it locked away and only accessible to Liberty students and staff. It's incredibly bizarre and suspicious that an institution would hide its code of conduct. Does anyone here have access or a personal copy we could used to verify references? ElKevbo (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Huckabee image

Removing image of huckabee playing music at thomas road baptist. I'm not sure what this has to do with Liberty University. Everyone agree? Coerver (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree, and I'll explain why. Thomas Road Baptist Church is the governing body over Liberty University, and it has everything to do with the school. The church's board is over Liberty University, and the school is under the church's umbrella. Not only is the church on the campus of LU, it also has classrooms, the financial aid office, several student/computer centers, etc. Because TRBC is the flagship for the school, and many of the celebrities come to the church to promote the school, I replaced Huckabee's photo. Jim Line (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think citations pertinent to this discussion could be important to multiple areas of this page. For instance, if the church does not govern the school or have any involvements in it as an entity, there should be some edits including the bond issue. I cannot find governing documents or similar at this point. Could you cite some references for some of your claims in this or are they merely anecdotal? I was unable to verify anything more than Thomas Road Baptist Church started Liberty University and currently is in a property adjacent to Liberty property. Coerver (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Academic Standing

I agree with the lack of source about the high academic status... Rtcpenguin 19:37, 10 October 2005‎ (UTC)

Endowment

$121 billion? That can't be right. $121 million, perhaps?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.252.176 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2010‎ (UTC)

Controversies

Caner

I moved the Caner section to Ergun Caner's own Wikipedia article because the whole section is about him. It seems that with other Wikipedia articles for colleges and universities, faculty with notoriety are typically either not mentioned, only mentioned in passing, or linked over to that person's own page.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedAdoudi (talk • contribs) 11:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Harvard University doesn't list every minor controversy on its webpage. Why does LU's? Example: the resignation of Harvard's president a year after making insensitive remarks is of little mention on Harvard's wikipedia page. And yet, something as insignificant which party cancelled a debate gets prominent mention on Liberty's?

These controversies are listed by people who wish to piggy-back off of this article to gain recognition for their own cause.

This article is so biased against Liberty...because it is edited by a bunch of Christ haters.

I love most of the things that Christ stood for; I just hate the hypocrisy, hate-mongering, and willful ignorance that are the hallmarks of so many of today's "Christians." Also, I'm amused by the fact that Liberty University's logo is a book being burned. 69.238.20.35 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's a flame inside a book. Their whole concept is the idea of the flame of knowledge, something you wouldn't understand.--McSpork (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's edited by a bunch of Christ haters, just people who obviously dislike Jerry Falwell therefore they are going to slander the university. No it's not fair but thats how Wikipedia goes.

Not really. If they're factually correct than it's not libelous speech. You may think they're being too hard on ol' Liberty. Maybe they are. But it's pretty easy to point out the foibles of a new, little special-interest religious college like Liberty. Especially when everything they do and say seems tailor-made to make that happen. Anyway, they're not exactly turning out academic leaders like Harvard.

If you think Liberty is a special interest, small, religious college then you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Before any Statements are made in reference to the controversies that exist in various universities (i.e. Harvard or Liberty University), it is very important to reference a credible source that provides truth for every reference to a controversy(s).Wzimmerman 01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

________

The tone of the article reads, in the main, as if the university wrote it for a brochure. Why? - Ann Burlingham 6/11/09

___________

Seriously! I came here to read about the school and it's programs and all I got was a page of criticisms. Meanwhile, I go to research other colleges and don't see any criticisms? Kind of odd if you ask me.

It might have something to do with them not teaching proper science.

-If you think it's ok to totally demean a university because you don't agree with the theory of some of their science then you better start jumping on many other schools as well.

• There's no such thing as "their" science, there is only science. If they teach something that's false (such as that Intelligent Design is a theory), it's not science.--Hugh7 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Science is not defined as theory or opinion.--McSpork (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article highlights primarily what the university is known about-- and that's in controversies. Harvards article doesnt have its controversies listed because to everyone else theyre not that big of a deal. It is a big deal when a educational institution teaches incorrect things, that is why it is written here. whether Liberty is doing it or not isnt up for debate--- because they are doing it. Removing it would only hiding the truth as to what this institution is doing. Barcode 02:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • What are they teaching that is incorrect? Nurses? Teachers? Economists? Because they teach a view of intelligent deisgn ALONG with other theories including Darwins, that makes the school bad? Don't think so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.165.125 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 May 2007

Did you see anywhere in the article, or in my statement where I stated it's bad?? Don't think so. But thinking a 10,000 year old Earth is fact and presenting it-- AS FACT... IS BAD.Barcode 00:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • 'cept that "Intelligent Design" does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's pure religious conjecture dressed-up in pseudoscientific language. The people who espouse it hate science, but want to be considered serious scientists very, very badly. It makes me sad. 69.238.20.35 (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
      • So the scientists who believe it hate science too? You're defining science as naturalism, which is a logical disconnect. Get your definitions straight.--McSpork (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Yeah they are teaching that as fact in a Creation Studies class. Hence the name Creation Studies. In Science classes it is taught as a THEORY along with Darwin and other theories. That is NOT bad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.0.186 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 May 2007

Please sign your posts. If they're teaching that as a scientific theory, that's very bad as it is failing to educate their students about the basics of science. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • My mistake about not signing the posts. I personally do not believe in the Creation theory that they teach in creation studies class. But I absolutely don't believe a university should be stomped on because they teach other theories along with Evolution during hard sciences courses. And I'm not saying you are stomping on the university as a whole, but others have. I understand the concern some may have about their science program, and I personally would like to see them disband the creation studies course, but other than that they aren't doing anything different than most institutions. Many thousands of public and secular private universities teach more than one theory, just like Liberty. 24.127.0.186 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • I am a current student at Liberty, and Evolution is NEVER taught as an okay theory in any class. Creation is the only accepted teaching, as it is the only fact. We all have to take a Creation Studies class, which digs deeper into the evidence evolutionists are using and why they're wrong, but all science classes teach creation from a 24-hour day, 7 day week, literal translation of Genesis. 65.161.73.251 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • The problem is not that they teach other theories. The problem is that they teach creationism although it is NOT a scientific theory. If they fail to understand this they can't understand what science is about...which is quite a bad thing considering that's what they should teach. 84.62.199.225 17:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason controversies are included is because that's what is notable about LU. It's controversies aren't just things that happened at LU but actual intrinsic values of LU unlike some drama that might occur at Harvard. Dramma!

1973 SEC charges church with "fraud and deceit"

According to Perry Deane Young in "God's Bullies" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982) "I found only one obscure interview in which Falwell admitted that the SEC was 'technically right'. One of his staff-written biographies actually says he and the church won this suit and were cleared of the charges. Such was not the case. The SEC agreed to remove the words "fraud and deceit" from the charge and the property was not placed in actual receivership until the bonds were paid off, but the church finances were put in the hands of a group of five local businessmen selected by the court to settle the mess." p215 --Hugh7 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I spoke with the attorney who represented Dr. Falwell. The SEC was pursuing a criminal charge, of which Dr. Falwell was cleared. He was cleared of criminal wrongdoing because "fraud and deceit" legally require "intent," which the SEC was not likely going to be able to prove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.19.225 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-added Radar Magazine ranking of the school, just because you are not pleased with others' perception of the school does not negate that perception.Traffic Demon 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a ranking. It's a pseudo-serious magazine publishing nonsensical rankings like "Worst Trust-Fund-Baby College". If you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive300#Vandalism_on_Liberty_University, every uninvolved person to comment agreed that it should not be in there. No serious person without an ax to grind against Liberty would add it. --B 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

D Yow is listed as an Alum, but her Bio does not mention Liberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.5.235 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)