Talk:Liberty University/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC: Is a John Lofton's American View material suitable for inclusion?

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

---

Should the Debate section of this article contain the highlighted text below? Roccodrift (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Debate Liberty's Inter-Collegiate policy debate program, formerly led by Brett O'Donnell, was number one in the overall rankings Championships in the National Debate Tournament for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The overall rankings include varsity, junior varsity, and novice results. In varsity rankings, Liberty finished 20th in 2005, 17th in 2006, 24th in 2007, 12th in 2008, 9th in 2009, 4th in 2010 and 4th in 2011. Liberty also hosts the Virginia High School League's annual Debate State Championships every April. John Lofton of The American View Christian radio show accused Liberty University of not being "a truly Christian college" when Jerry Falwell gave permission for the debate team to debate in favor of abortion when required. The issue arose when the team was faced with the need to argue for abortion rights or give up the debate program for that year.

Survey

Omit the Lofton piece and related discussion in the article. No one has presented any compelling information that shows that Lofton's opinion is inherently noteworthy, is shared by others, or has resulted in any action on anyone's part therefore including it in this or any other article gives it undue weight. ElKevbo (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Omit Lofton's opinion because it fails to meet the threshold of a "significant viewpoint", as required by WP:UNDUE. Roccodrift (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep Lofton is "an American conservative political commentator and editor of The American View radio program". He's a pundit and journalist, so his opinion is inherently noteworthy and significant. The New York Times and Boston Globe also covered the issue of the debate team having to argue in favor of abortion, showing that the incident itself is notable. Please note that there is no requirement in policy for Lofton's view to be shared by anyone else; that is a red herring that we must disregard as irrelevant. I'll also note that this is valid criticism that WP:NPOV does not allow us to censor. MilesMoney (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Omit Lofton's opinion on Liberty University because he and his opinion fail to meet the requirements for notability and violate WP:UNDUE. Wolfy54 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you bringing up WP:UNDUE, as others have. Would you consider explaining precisely why you believe it's undue? I ask because it's not self-evident. Lofton is a public figure speaking within his area of expertise, so I would think that this would suffice to make the criticism notable. MilesMoney (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Omit -- The non-notable comment by a non-notable host on a non-notable radio station with a citation to a primary source. I also object to the deceptive Easter egg wikilink for the American View show that appears in the sentence.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Omit Explained further in the above and below comments. Non notable source, non notable comment. The validity of the comment and the worthiness for inclusion are not things that can be determined mathematically but common sense, (at least by my definition), dictates this section go. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I was going to do this, but not quite this way as the issue is whether John Lofton's comment should be included at all, not necessarily as part of the debate section. The quote comes from this page. The New York Times article is at [1]. It's also mentioned here. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have said that I would have worded it differently, eg "Should a comment by John Lofton be included in the article?" This avoids specifying where, as well as the use of the word 'blog' - it is of course his blog, but the issue isn't that it's a blog but whether his opinion should be included. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where Lofton is mentioned in either the NYT or Boston Globe articles. Can you please help me find it? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The 'debate', sorry, not Lofton. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid that I don't see how those publications are germane to this discussion. The question on the table is the inclusion of the Lofton piece and associated material, not the general issue of inclusion of the debate team in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's context. The Lofton piece mentions the NYT article, so it seems obviously relevant. I think the BG article is also - if you don't see that, you don't see that, but I do. It's about the debate team arguing for abortion if required to. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. We don't consider an opinion piece to be more noteworthy just because it mentions a NYT or Boston Globe article. It works the other way around: If the NYT or Boston Globe discussed Lofton's opinion or his piece then that would be evidence that it's noteworthy and something we should include in an encyclopedia.

So again (for the fifth time?) I ask: What evidence is there that this opinion piece is so noteworthy that it should be explicitly discussed in an encyclopedia article? ElKevbo (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again you've misunderstood me (where have I mentioned noteworthy, or anything for or against keeping this, in this thread?). I've posted here only to provide the link for Lofton, the NYT article he refers to, and just because I found it and it seems relevant, the BG article. This is an RfC, let's see what others have to say. If I feel like it, I may say more, but not because I'm being questioned over and over again. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, you're getting questioned over and over because you've been dodging questions about how your edits comport with Wikipedia policy. So far, the crux of your position seems to be that Lofton's blog is a RS for Lofton's opinion, so therefore the material is suitable for inclusion. But you have studiously avoided the matters of due weight and relevance. You steadfastly refuse to address the most basic question, "Why does Lofton matter?" You're stonewalling. (Impertinent of me to express it this way. Sorry.)

Those articles don't strengthen your case; they weaken it. Here we see coverage in two major news sources, and neither of them contain a mention or even a hint of agreement with Lofton's views. It's obvious that the bombastic Lofton is an outlier, and doesn't represent the required "significant viewpoint". Roccodrift (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As usual, your reasoning eludes me. The fact that two other reliable sources noted the odd situation about the debate team being forced to argue in favor of abortion shows that it's not some fine point that Lofton picked up on but nobody else cared about. I have no idea why you imagine that Lofton's point has to be repeated by other to be significant. Is there a policy behind this or did you make it up? MilesMoney (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But that's not Lofton's point or even a point of discussion here. Lofton's point is that this situation is evidence that Liberty University is not (as) Christian as it claims to be. That is why this material is included in this article and why it is at all interesting. Without that claim - which appears to be only be Lofton's and as such is such a tiny minority view that it's not something to be included in an encyclopedia - it's completely trivial and not worth noting since it's totally routine and expected that debate teams prepare both sides of a debate. ElKevbo (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Being expected to debate any side of an issue is normal; the expectation that a truly Christian college would disallow the pro-abortion side is, well, unexpected. The Globe and Times show that the issue of debating in favor of abortion is notable, and Lofton is an example of how this incident was viewed by other conservatives. His view is in itself notable; I have no idea where you get the notion that it's a "minority" view. In fact, I'm not even sure what it's a minority 'of'. You seem to be using it purely as a slur to discredit Lofton, but that goes against our sources, which show him to be a journalist and pundit. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll repeat myself - " This sort of one person comment is common in articles and expecting, for instance, it to be met by actions or changes (or to say it should only be included if others say the same thing) is unreasonable. If Lofton had no article I'd probably agree with you, but he does so he is notable by our criteria, right?" This is simply my opinion, hopefully the RfC will show if others share it. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You're an admin and that is your argument?

Do I really have to explain to you that what's been done in other articles makes absolutely no difference whatsoever?

OK, here it is again, the thing you need to address... here is the section of a Wikipedia core policy that you (an admin, who should know better) have been ignoring: WP:NPOV

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Thus far, you haven't even attempted to explain how Lofton's blog piece meets that threshold. Lofton's attainment of basic notability for a Wikipedia article is meaningless here. We do not enshrine every pronouncement of every person who has a bio on Wikipedia simply because we carry a bio on them.

We've asked you repeatedly: "Why does Lofton matter?" What makes the opinion of John Lofton significant? And you are still dodging that question. Why wouldn't you address it, unless the reason is that you simply don't have an answer. And if you don't have an answer, then you are simply being obstructionist. Roccodrift (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This question has been answered repeatedly. Ignoring an answer does not prevent it from existing. MilesMoney (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV and lead

See WP:LEAD - the attempt to keep any controversies out of the lead - which seems to be mainly by SPAs, violations both our guideline on leads and NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The main argument is Relative Emphasis. Your counter was that a controversy should be included in the lead. I argued that the addition of a controversy in the lead was unusual for a College and University stub. But the main argument is still Relative Emphasis. Liberty is a very large university with 148 areas of study. To single out the curriculum of one area of study for the lead (even if it is controversial and wrong) violates Relative Emphasis, and breaks with the usual College and University stub. YEC is not even a trait that Liberty is well-known for outside of science academia; for instance, it is not mentioned in the lengthy Washington Post article from last year. Liberty is not the only university to have strange curriculum. It is well-handled and fine in the body of the article, where it belongs.Wolfy54 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you quote the guideline that mentions relative emphasis? Please note what I've written - there are no controversies mentioned in the lead. 'Unusual' doesn't mean that they should be kept out of the lead. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD ("Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.")? This is not an expression of an opinion about the topic under discussion – just a pointer to the policy that I think is being invoked here. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean no controversies should be mentioned (and I know you aren't suggesting that). I'm not arguing for the creationist stuff, just saying that keeping all controversy out of the lead is probably inappropriate for this specific university. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of that subject in the lead is entirely warranted and appropriate. There are not many universities, especially ones so large, that offer science programs teaching intelligent design. I disagree that its inclusion in the lead would represent undue emphasis. Rytyho usa (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That is the policy to which I was referring, and that is still my main argument. I agree that controversies may be appropriate in the lead of articles, but I think it is undue in this instance for the reasons outlined above. Wolfy54 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the NPOV tag at the top of the article. I don't think it is relevant or necessary, and it has been there for over a month.Wolfy54 (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Creationism

Can someone please elaborate what exactly Liberty University is teaching as creationism? Seems a rather short subject. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Liberty University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130111100150/http://www.liberty.edu:80/academics/ministrytraining/index.cfm?PID=2949 to http://www.liberty.edu/academics/ministrytraining/index.cfm?PID=2949
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120920201803/http://www2.newsadvance.com:80/news/2012/sep/17/new-school-music-announced-liberty-university-ar-2212999/ to http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2012/sep/17/new-school-music-announced-liberty-university-ar-2212999/

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To prevent a Jihad attack, President Jerry Falwell, Jr, supports arming 14,000 students/staff/faculty

This is not an unreasonable statement. He knows not everyone there will adhere.

Headline-1: LIBERTY PRESIDENT CALLS FOR AN ARMED CHRISTIAN CAMPUS

• http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBERTY_UNIVERSITY_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-05-12-15-39

QUOTE: "Let's teach them a lesson if they ever show up here." -- AstroU (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI, New NEWS today, for future editing.

Liberty University in politics

Trump is appealing to both Democrats and Republicans.

Headline-1: Donald Trump to speak at Liberty University

• http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article53069160.html

Subtitle quotes: "Venue is popular with Republican presidential candidates; Trump last spoke at the school in 2012." -- AstroU (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Liberty University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071008071002/https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=7014 to http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=7014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100625062315/http://www.liberty.edu/media/1171/BLC%20Brochure%20-%20Front%20and%20Inside%20Combined.pdf to https://www.liberty.edu/media/1171/BLC%20Brochure%20-%20Front%20and%20Inside%20Combined.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

New Dorms

I put an "outdated" tag on the Main, East, and North Campus section a while back (later updating it to December 2015). New Dorms named Commons I and Commons II have been completed on Main Campus next door to the Vines Center. I do not have the time to find source articles or make the necessary changes to the page, even though I go there. I know "personal experience" is not something I can cite. It would be wonderful if someone could update the article. I believe it mentions plans to build new dorms, and the two 8-story (9 counting the Resident Director apartments on the top floor) are those new dorms. The second of the two was just finished over this Christmas Break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super3588 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Updated acceptance rate

The acceptance rate on US News & World Report is listed as 20.2%. I updated the page accordingly: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/liberty-university-10392 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.123.95 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Outdated Article

This article, particularly the section on Main, East and North Campus, is SEVERELY outdated. There are several things missing such as two new dorm buildings (Commons I and II), a new School of Religion building (the Freedom Tower), an expansion of the DeMoss building (the DeMoss Student Center), and several new practice facilities on North Campus (including a new indoor track and a new indoor football practice facility). -- Super3588 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to provide the necessary updates, with references. Rytyho usa (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When I have some time, I will. To be clear, I don't have to use a news article as a reference, do I? I can use regular pages from the website that aren't password-protected? -- Super3588 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Two-piece requested edit

I've just gotten a job offer from Liberty, so I suppose I'm ending up in the COI category as far as this article goes.

Please shorten the "Controversy" section by deleting two of the subsections, "1994 debt buy-out" and "Support of concealed carry permits". Neither one even mentions any controversy: the first one simply says that Unification Church-related entities provided financing to the university, and the second mentions the school's position on concealed carry. Absent controversy, these appear to be minor elements of the institution's history, bits not really worth mentioning, and non-controversial stuff doesn't belong in Controversy. If there's been significant resistance to either one (something in which the university's gotten firm opposition, comparable to what it got with the 1989 bond issue or to the teaching of creationism), third-party coverage could be added (not merely a blog by a few people protesting, but bring in legal difficulties or criticism from eminent people in the relevant fields), but since at this point nobody's added something of that sort, both need to be removed from the article.

And finally, while you're at it, you might as well throw in a spelling fix; the article has one mention of "Candlers Mountain" and one of "Candler's Mountain", but the official name (see [2]) is merely "Candler Mountain", so please change both of these appearances to "Candler Mountain". Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The second controversy is sourced. See ref 158 which discusses the publicity/media response itself. The controversy wasn't that the president is pro-CC, it was that he insinuated that he wanted students to use the guns to keep Muslims out of the school (even though he was talking about terrorists, he referred to them as "Muslims"). I'll change the header to represent what the uproar was actually about.

The buyout appears to be controversial only within the university itself, and the only source is highly involved in the buyout (The founder of Washington Post was the buyer). I'm not sure if that counts, and I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to help the consensus there.

Lastly, COI doesn't apply to minor edits like spelling fixes, so don't worry about it! I know you're an admin, but just to be sure: WP:COIU Jergling (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, since you're going beyond the basic requested-edit process, no complaints; just please remove bits specifically about concealed-carry, e.g. the class to obtain the permit, since your words make it seem as if only elements related to the president's comment attracted opposition. And please add information about who objected, e.g. Governor McAuliffe (his statement appears in reference #158), because complaints by folks in the media aren't particularly relevant. Given your words that the buyout wasn't externally controversial (it hardly sounds like something that would have attracted tons of interest from folks like Governor McAuliffe or Richard Dawkins), it needs to be removed, unless someone finds contradictory evidence; irrelevant information needs to be chopped, regardless of whether it's sourced. Finally, yes I remember about minor edits; I just felt lazy :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I also have a conflict of interest (I'm a student at Liberty.), though I have edited the article and added uncontroversial facts.

Now that I have that out of the way: Jergling, for information about sources involved in an incident, see the essay WP:THIRDPARTY. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Way ahead of you on the concealed carry red herring, Nyttend. I'm not really sure why people thought that was relevant. WRT the media response, I think the governor's statement is relevant but I'm not in a position to make thorough, encyclopedic edits at this time (just patrolling in between small tasks at work). I'll come back later and fill that in, but I can handle cutting out the Buyout section. I'd be surprised if anyone took you to wiki-court over that! Jergling (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Endowment

Please note that the US News & World Report is not always a good source for financials since they often cite those from wikipedia. In this case it is quite possible that they cited the 1 billion figure from an old version of this page. To be clear Liberty University has assets of just over $1 billion, but that is not the same thing as an 'endowment'. RioDevez (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. However, here is an article from USA Today from 2013 stating that the endowment had just cleared over $1 billion. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/14/liberty-university/2764789/ How should we handle this? Is there a total assets valuation field in the infobox? Wolfy54 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how endowment or total assets or whatever works, but the place to check about a |totalassets= parameter in the template (or something similar) would be here, Wolfy54, where you can see every parameter the infobox allows. That is, you can if the documentation has been kept up-to-date. — Gestrid (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Quiz bowl

Anyone mind removing the quiz bowl team from the Athletics section? They're no more athletic than is a video-game team (see e-sports), so they don't belong in that section any more than a video-game team would belong in a section on academics. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done yes; as stated in my edit summary the rationale and qualifier in article states: it is the"varsity sport of the mind" = there could be an argument for possibly adding to the section: Debate and Forensics Speech (and Quiz Bowl). Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 17:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.databasebasketball.com/players/bycollege.htm?sch=Liberty%20University
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113011849/http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2010/dec/08/lu-sells-120m-facilities-bonds-ar-702763/ to http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2010/dec/08/lu-sells-120m-facilities-bonds-ar-702763/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Enrollment

How should the enrollment of Liberty University be described in the lede? There are currently around 15000 students at the physical campus in Lynchburg, Virginia. The other 100,000 students are "online" students. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I note the Chronicle of Higher Education as a generally neutral source regarding universities. However, I don't have a subscription and can't read any of the (several) articles they have regarding Liberty's online classes. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question or the underlying concern. It's essential to note the number of online students in the lead because it's a defining characteristic of this university. It's also important to note the number of on-campus students, too. We can't simply lump them together, however; they're both important populations but they're also distinct. ElKevbo (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The underlying concern is that "Liberty University (also referred to as Liberty or LU) is a private, non-profit Christian research university located in Lynchburg, Virginia, United States." The first paragraph should at least mention the number of students located in Lynchburg, Virginia; or else the first sentence should be re-written to mention the online element of the institution. Power~enwiki (talk)

I think that either suggested approach would be fine. The first suggestion would be more in line with most other college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I've attempted a new version. It still needs copy-editing. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

How are other universities handling this issue? Most don't even differentiate between online or on campus, from what I can tell. Almost every college and university now has fully online degrees and courses though. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I would be surprised if there is any consistency about how we handle this across articles. I imagine that is largely because (a) online only students are a minority at most colleges and universities and (b) it's a relatively new phenomenon so not only are we way behind in recognizing this culturally (many people still think that most college students are young, full-time students living on campus!) but many of our data collection efforts and sources have been slow to begin collecting and displaying these data. It's certainly not easily accessible information in the national data system (IPEDS) and in fact there has been controversy about how ED has tried to collect these data.

However, we do have good information about this particular university and it's a critical fact that readers must be told about. It is one of the defining characteristics of this university hence it belongs in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

New Motto

Somebody needs to add the new motto "We The Champions" not sure who keeps removing it, but it is the school's new motto. This was announced during the first convocation of the year 2017-2018 and clearly marked on the upper left side of their website. In addition to social media and multiple sections their website.

The current issue is AlaskanNativeRU whoever it is keeps reversing it. I am 100% aware and have verifiable sources this is the new motto. They just started a marketing campaign to promote the new motto in August of 2017. Not sure who that individual is, but they apparently are either vandalizing intentionally or have no idea what they are talking about. I have reported this individual to Wikipedia and awaiting a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C6:8300:2721:A406:281C:CC22:2BE2 (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a different between a marketing campaign and the official motto of the school. Per the source listed in the article - https://www.liberty.edu/aboutliberty/?PID=6925 , the official motto is stated as "Knowledge Aflame". If you continue to ignore this your edits will be reverted. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

WRONG. They are phasing into this new motto. The marketing campaign is to promote the new motto. I am done discussing this with you. We will let Wikipedia decide what will happen with you next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C6:8300:2721:DE4:358:A53C:BAB8 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberty University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/07/31/liberty-university-scholarship-awarded-to-aig-research-paper-winner
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120718010229/http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2006/05/14/graduation-day-at-liberty-university/ to http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2006/05/14/graduation-day-at-liberty-university/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120906051640/http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/06/13/liberty-university-online-enrollment-reaches-80000/ to http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/06/13/liberty-university-online-enrollment-reaches-80000/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Carnegie rating

Please stop reinserting the general category "research university" from the Carnegie website. As I explained in my edit summary, the university is rated on each of its programs, and the information I added to the article is more descriptive, at a higher level of detail, than the one you have reinserted twice without discussion or any constructive disagreement with my edit summary. Please share any concerns here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a classification system, not a rating (or ranking) system. It's intended to be descriptive, not normative or evaluative.ElKevbo (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, please excuse the wrong word, rating, above. As is clear from the context of my remark I was talking about description just as you are. The Carnegie site gives its classification in more detail, and so I added that detail to the article to better describe the program of Liberty University for our readers and you should not have restored the less descriptive and misleading one. Please undo your reversal and restore the more detailed category from my edit. SPECIFICO talk 03:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You are not taking this from an NPOV, especially when looking at your serious anti-conservative bias in all of your recent edits. You making up terms such as "non-technical" which is used no where by Carnegie will keep getting reverted. As ElKevbo already mentioned the carnegie classification system is intended to be descriptive, not normative or evaluative. Furthermore Carnegie and others classify Liberty as a research university. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the central point -- and I hope you will find a better way to express it than I was able to -- is that "research university" will suggest scientific research to our readers. In common usage, research is most associated with the sciences, or "STEM" subjects. But Carnegie describes LU as being strongest in the professions other than engineering (which I paraphrased as "technical" -- I didn't make it up) Carnegie defines as follows

Research Doctoral: Professional-dominant These institutions awarded research doctoral degrees in a range of fields, and the largest number of research doctorates were in professions other than engineering (such as education, health professions, law, public policy, or social work).

There's a lot of descriptive material on the Carnegie classification page, so I hope you can do a better job than I and find a way to convey a more detailed and specific sense of LU's core. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't made a specific study of how Wikipedia editors use Carnegie Classifications but I am in the process of systematically examining Wikipedia's coverage of colleges and universities in the U.S. so I have looked at a few thousand of these articles. I have also paid more than casual attention to how people (outside and inside of Wikipedia) use and refer to these classifications (and, coincidentally, a former Senior Scholar at the institute who led the 2005 update of the rankings, the update that added the different, additional classifications, was on my dissertation committee). Both here in Wikipedia and outside of it, people almost universally mean the Basic Classification when they talk about an institution's Carnegie classification; the only significant exception that I have encountered are the very small minority of people who work at or have a special interest in the voluntary Community Engagement classification. I can only recall seeing the other classifications in a handful of articles. (frankly, even the basic classification isn't used too often in articles).

Based on those observations, it would be highly unusual to include anything other than the basic classification in this article. It would be extraordinary, perhaps unique, to refer to the classifications but not use or include the basic classification.

(I genuinely wish it were different and trying to make it so is somewhere on my wish/to-do list. I think that we should be including these classifications in nearly every pertinent article. They're eminently useful and would help resolve some of the sticky POV/OR issues we have with editors trying to make up their own descriptions of institutions.) 06:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Carnegie classification in the lede?

Why are we mentioning the Carnegie classification in the lede? We don't routinely do this for other universities - so why this one? Xerton (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It's dumb. Delete. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty standard from what I have seen. I say keep it how it is. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe the combination of mentioning the incomplete Carnegie classification (i.e. that it's Doctoral but not that it's Doctoral with Medium RI) and claiming that it is the largest private university in the US (counting part-time enrolled online students who pay as little as $100 per semester in tuition) makes the article biased on the whole. I think you'd struggle to find anyone arguing that including online students in enrollment tallies is conventional, and I also think mentioning Carnegie as-is is redundant given that "research university" is specified in the first sentence. Dysase (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It IS the largest non-profit private university in the US, no matter what your personal opinion on the topic is. Today almost all colleges and universities have fully online degrees/students that don't get differentiated from their residential body. Although this article already lists the difference in online and residential enrollment. Your $100 per semester comment is also not true, simply put the enrollment is already correctly stated. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, how about changing the first clause from "In terms of student enrollment" to "When including online student enrollment"? That's neutral, much more precise, avoids the enrollment ambiguity, and is just as readable.Dysase (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No where in this discussion did it say we were removing the Carnegie classification from the article completely. Only to move it to a different section in the article. I have restored the information that you have deleted. The enrollment is already presented clearly. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I see it under academics now, specifying the full Carnegie classification. That seems fair to me. I still think "When including online student enrollment" is more precise, and I'll await input from other editors.Dysase (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like commenting that it is a research university in the lead is good enough; including the Carnegie classification in the lead does not add anything of value. That's a fact that is well placed in the body of the article. Rytyho usa (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe create a 'Politics' sub-section or heading?

We could put 'Trump', 'ban on Dem club' and 'role in GOP politics' under that sub-section under heading? I still think the politics stuff belongs under 'History'.

The student honor code belongs in one of the sections below, for instance on 'student life'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the school's general outlook and approach is appropriately described up top somewhere, even if it isn't quite "history". I'm not 100% comfortable with the current placement (the quick couple paras about its orientation) but can live with it. As for the occasional political / POV dustups, I think they need to come later. For all of the things that it is, Liberty is a university, with a campus and curriculum and dorms and the rest, and they I think they warrant description before discussion about about handguns, Trump and the rest. JohnInDC (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see ElKevbo has moved a few things back and made some other edits as well. I'm content to defer to his judgment. JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The real problem is that this material should be integrated into the university's history but it's very unlikely that amateurs - which describes nearly all Wikipedia editors especially in such a narrowly defined topic - are unlikely to volunteer to do this or have the capability of doing it well. So we end up with these disconnected sections that provide little or no context despite having occurred or existing in a specific (historical, cultural, geographical, financial, etc.) context. ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is created and governed by amateurs. If you can't live with that, find other outlets for your effort. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a request for comment (rfc) for politics, due to how out of hand this article has been shaped politically. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:CIVIL and rethink how you interact with other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are putting some personal claim of expertise above site norms. That's a no-no. Screw civil. I'm always civil as a cat. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm not an expert on this institution, either. Please stop assuming things about me or other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Rest assured, I don't know or care anything about your expertise. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

LU's finances, marketing and recruitment practices have extensive coverage in the article

Users keep removing content on LU's finances, marketing and recruitment practices, even though this is covered at length in the article by a large number of sources.[3] It's one of the things that LU has attracted significant RS coverage over. There is therefore no reason to exclude it from the lede, as it's both featured at length in the body and by lots of RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a blatant NPOV issue with this, as well as undue weight being placed by one New York Times article. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I count at least 8 RS that cover the gist of the text that was removed from the lede. I'd also like to note that there were more RS available about this very precise topic, but I did not bother to add them to the article (as I was not expecting that editors would argue that half a dozen sources and a heading with three sub-sections was insufficient for notability). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Also. If the article can go on about the University's asset size and robust "financial responsibility" score, isn't it also appropriate to discuss the ways in which the school works to ensure sufficient enrollment, and the ways in which those students pay for their educations? JohnInDC (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe it should, but the main problem in the article right now seems that almost every source that is being used has some variation of a title that includes the word 'Trump' , which is inappropriate for an article that was supposed to be from a neutral point of view.. And also the RS is just one being given undue weight, as well as others that just rehosted the NYT's article. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You're not complaining about the content, or the sourcing, but the titles of the sources? JohnInDC (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the titles = the source. Political articles are being used to describe the university, when there should be others used. I'm sure there's alternatives to articles that mentioned Trump and Liberty in everyone. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by AlaskaNativeRU

There are a number of problems with edits that one editor, AlaskaNativeRU, just made[4]:

• First, the editor replaces language that stems directly from the RS, such as that related to school rankings (most readers, me included have absolutely no clue what it means to be ranked #231-300 in US News and WR (the RS says that this is the "lowest quartile", so it helps me and other readers understand what its ranking actually is.
• Second, the editor removes specific examples of schools (which again mirrors the content of the RS), which helps readers understand what's being talked about (e.g. what's a traditional private university).
• Third, it's not NPOV to say that LU "refutes" something. The LU "responds", it doesn't "refute" (unless RS say it "refutes").
• Fourth, it is more accurate to describe the PP/NYT piece as an "investigation" or "investigative piece" than a mere "article" (there's a difference).
• Fifth, the editor just removed reliably sourced content about Falwell's political advocacy for less stringent criteria for federal student aid and less regulation for student loans. These are issues that are blatantly relevant to LU (and the RS that's cited EXPLICITLY mentions LU in the context of Falwell's advocacy). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the raw rankings are fine, but we can add "4th quartile" - or, even less Synthetically, state the total number of schools in the list. That would do. I don't care about the names of specific schools. I agree re "refute" vs. "respond". As for the NYT article, let's just say that the NYT "reported" something and avoid a noun. And I agree about restoring Falwell's advocacy. JohnInDC (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that in addition, the new material on LGBT issues could be condensed to say something like, "The school opposes LGBT rights" or something NPOV to describe its position, and then give these items as one-sentence examples, rather than entire paragraphs. It's easy enough to find unpopular aspects of the school's philosophy or belief system, and they don't all need to be recited in detail. JohnInDC (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Better still, see if you can find what the Honor Code says about sex and sexuality and note that. I'm confident that they're pretty strict on premarital heterosexual sex as well, in addition to the LGBT issues. JohnInDC (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Codes of conduct - I think - http://www.liberty.edu/academics/catalogs/?PID=25496 JohnInDC (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Honor code as of June 2017 says, "Sexual relations outside of a biblically ordained marriage between a natural-born man and a natural-born woman are not permissible at Liberty University." LGBT issues strike me as an outgrowth of the Honor Code, and appropriately described in connection with that portion of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So I restored the text re Falwell and the Obama initiatives, then as I was copy editing the text to streamline it and more neutrally describe the proposals, had second thoughts about including it. The piece on which it's based was kind of a retrospective, a commentary on Falwell; and while the information is surely true, and quite reliably sourced, I did not get the sense (from this article anyhow) that Falwell's opposition was so newsworthy in real time. So I took it back out, subject of course to Talk here. JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been covered by multiple sources, so it's WP:DUE. It's blatantly relevant that the President of a university that's dependent on federal aid and student loans is not only advocating for less stringent regulation on those matters but is in a position to actually have a meaningful impact on those regulations.[5][6][7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through everything you list, I actually have some real stuff to do, but the edit notes explained it more than enough. Eventually a Rfc needs to be called, because Snooganssnoogans at this point is not editing in good faith or without bias (clear as day in his user page). He turned this article into a political peice based in his liberal political leanings. Nor is this following wiki guidelines on universities at this point AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The articles about Falwell talk about his advisory role to the current administration, not his role as Liberty University president. Of course he is hostile to federal regulation, and of course his school will benefit from laxer oversight, but I am not sure that running down all of Falwell's views in this article is the right place. If there is a source that reflects his opposition to the regs and statutes as president of the school, when they were proposed, I think that's a much better candidate. Separately, I have added in info about the USNR rankings. I also determined that as of 2018, Liberty is a "national" university and so the "regional" rankings are stale; also in 2018 I didn't see its programs ranked in detail as the article says for 2015. Query whether the older rankings should stay. JohnInDC (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources explicitly tie Falwell's advocacy to him being president of a university that would benefit from the changes. It's literally in the title of the NY Times article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does; but in advising the President he is not acting in his official capacity, on behalf of the University. Without more, it doesn't belong in an article about Liberty University. Again, if we had something that reported his resistance to the Obama initiatives at the time, speaking expressly or implicitly on behalf of the school, then it would be appropriate here - you could say, "Liberty University opposed the efforts", or whatever the source said. But these articles, in this context, merely state something that Jerry Falwell Jr. believes, and is being put in a position to implement. JohnInDC (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Further - the news here, if it is news, is that Falwell will serve in this role to the President. Not that he holds one or another (entirely predictable) view or position. JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, per the RS, the news here is also that the president of LU is pushing for changes that would benefit specifically benefit LU, a university with a business model that already receives scrutiny. You're essentially asking us to ignore what the RS say, because you think the big story is something totally different from what the RS are reporting. That's not how editing here works. We go by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently it's not going to happen after all: [8]. JohnInDC (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How exactly would he speak on behalf of the school? Who says, "In my capacity as president of LU, I recommend changes XYZ"? The reliable sources explicitly tie his remarks to LU (it's literally in the title of one of the sources), so why should we as editors ignore that and make some OR-style requirements as to the connections between the Falwell's advocacy and LU. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no There there. Falwell didn't (as far as I can see) speak out against the regulations when they were implemented. This article notes that, as the head of a task force he'll be able to go after regulations that he doesn't like. That's the whole point of the article. That he has these views, that he's going to have additional authority to implement. But now he's not on the task force at all. So what we have in the end is an entirely predictable point of view that Falwell is in no particular position to act on or not. There's nothing there. It's just - "Jerry Falwell has said he opposes regulations that would affect his school's profitability". JohnInDC (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is not for us to decide. We go by RS. For what its worth (note that this is worthless, as I'm not the one deciding what should be getting RS coverage) I'd argue that it's extremely relevant that the president of this low-quality university wields massive power in GOP politics and is advocating for major government changes in higher education that would affect LU as well as the whole higher education systems and the students within it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It is precisely for us to decide. We are editors, not aggregators. And we don’t try to edit with a particular POV or larger aim in mind.

I did some more looking and, sigh, this (vague) task force may be happening after all. [9]. Typical. So the news here is, “Falwell will reportedly sit on a White House task force charged with X. Falwell has publicly expressed opposition to Y and Z regulation, repeal of which would likely benefit Liberty”. Don’t characterize the regulation or its stated aims, just lay out the facts. I am not sure where that fits here but that would be a relevant, non-POV formulation. JohnInDC (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can agree to a variation of your proposed text (the one in quotes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope you can understand what I was getting at. (It has taken me a while to figure it out for myself.) Without the task force, and without Falwell's having objected to the Obama actions when they were happening, it's just someone reporting on what seems like the blindingly obvious position that he'd take. If all he's doing is saying, "I don't like these regulations" then - it's not worth remarking on. But with the task force - as amorphous and dubious as it may be - well, maybe he can do something about the regulations then. The news is the task force, not what Falwell thinks. It still seems a bit like an aside in this article, and if tomorrow there were another that said the task force was being disbanded before it ever got underway, I'd say it has no place at all. But so long as it lingers, and may take form, I don't really object. JohnInDC (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So I'm adding in the task force info where it appears to make the most sense. I did learn though that the general idea of "college over-regulation" is not confined to conservative Christian college presidents. For example, this article notes, "The chancellor of Vanderbilt University, Nicholas Zeppos, co-chaired a task force that concluded in 2015 that federal education regulations are 'unnecessarily voluminous' and that compliance is 'inordinately costly.' That report drew a degree of bipartisan support from lawmakers on Capitol Hill. But it did not appear to have much influence with the Obama administration." I bet Vanderbilt would benefit too, from the deregulatory efforts advocated by its president, who co-chaired a task force - JohnInDC (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Here for general info is that 2015 task force report. JohnInDC (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Academic metrics in lede

Liberty University is an outlier university on many academic metrics: Its law school has the fourth highest unemployment rate of any law school in the U.S., their student loan default rate is above average for private schools, it has absurdly low GPA requirements, and rather questionable recruitment practices. I think this information is far too important to be buried in the article body, and I think a short paragraph mentioning these and related metrics in the lede -- similar to how the University of Phoenix and WMU Cooley law school articles do it -- would be rather helpful to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysase (talk • contribs)

I agree that the lede does not adequately capture the content of the body and misses information that has received extensive RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Absurdly low requirements to get in... What are you guys smoking. The admissions rate is around 20% which is lower than most public and private schools in the nation. Although the transfer-in GPA for the online program is only a 2.0, those programs are meant for people looking for a second chance or to finish up their degree.

I don't think the lede does a good enough job capturing how extensive and great this University truly is. Editing in a NPOV way would have that come out naturally. What kind of school gets a current POTUS to speak at their commencement then the next year get a former POTUS (Jimmy Carter) to speak at the commencement. This place is a marvel.

AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We should definitely mention in the lede that LU plays a prominent role in Republican politics (as RS extensively report). Your feelings about the quality of the university are irrelevant. What matters is what RS report about the quality of the university. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Do you think that presidents speak at Liberty because of its long history of academic and scholarly excellence, or because of the way in which it has injected itself into the national political discourse? Of course we follow what the RS say - I'm just asking, to prompt a bit of reflection on your part. JohnInDC (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking me? Presidents speaking at LU has obviously nothing to do with academic excellence. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

But it's not just Republicans.. Jimmy Carter is a democrat and is speaking at Liberty next month. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple sources in the article that document that LU plays a prominent role in Republican politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Not you Snoogans, and ANRU? Not just Republicans. It's manifest that Liberty's standing is as a political force, not as an institution of higher education. I acknowledge that it's an important politically; don't your kid yourself into believing that it's important because it teaches well. JohnInDC (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the lede should reflect Liberty's influence on the Christian right, and that there's no immediate correlation between that and academic quality or lack thereof. Can I interpret the above as consensus (sans one) that the article would benefit from a short lede paragraph on academic quality? Dysase (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be good faith npov edits. And it would be most certainly undue seeing how it's the same source and refuted. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that the lead should better summarize the article. Summarizing facts in an objective tone is NPOV, and there are many ways that Liberty is notably distinct from other universities (as described above). This should be included in the lead. Rytyho usa (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As shown by RS and covered in the Rankings section, Liberty has its strengths and weaknesses. It should be possible to represent all viewpoints in a neutral and balanced manner as required by WP:RS. I would like to see proposed text for the lead. Until then I am opposed to addition of academic metrics.– Lionel^(talk) 06:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of a principled basis for not mentioning academic standards or metrics in the lede of an article about a national university, whether the rankings are a strength or a weakness. I'm sure that the figures can be presented in a succinct and neutral way, perhaps: "Liberty University is ranked #231-300 (of 300 ranked) in the U.S. News and World Report ranking of 'National Universities.' In 2017, Forbes's list of America's Top Colleges ranked Liberty University 610 of 650 overall as a 'Top College'." It repeats the text, but the text is pretty sparse already. I would not recommend including the 2015 rankings, which are 3 years old (dating to when USNR classified LU as a "regional" university), apparently not repeated in later USNR reports, and not easily accessible on line (at least I have had trouble tracking them down). JohnInDC (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

John, the text does not say out of 300 or 650, there are over 2000 colleges in the US which the rankings consist of. If you want to bring up specifics like that, which I've never seen in a lede, it should have the correct number of all insitiutions that are considered in the rankings and not just the ranked ones. Additionally as long as a npov is used (there are many positives and negatives academically about this place) including all would be fair. But unless that happens I would be opposed just as Lionelt is. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please go look at the source. There are 311 "National Universities", not 2000. They ranked 300 and didn't rank 11. JohnInDC (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are squemish about interpreting the rankings, we could use the language that secondary sources use to interpret them: "lowest quartile" and "regional university". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I support your proposed text, but we should also note that the online component of LU has received scrutiny in ways that the campus courses have not. It's unclear to me if the USNWR and Forbes rankings take into account the online program. Seeing as how 95% of the students are in the online program, it would be an oversight not to mention it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure either how they weave in the online bits. USNR does have separate rankings for online schools, see here, but it's not clear whether that's a separate set or a subset of the larger rankings. I'm not sure yet about what to say about the scrutiny in the lead. JohnInDC (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

you missed the point, there's over 2000 colleges in the US which are considered for the ranking - not all are ranked. Only the top 300 are ranked (different for Forbes which is only 650 out if 2000). So it's out of 2000 not 300 since the majority are unranked or rank not published. And I disagree with Snooga's phrasing and the basis of that statement, since US news does rank certain online programs and Liberty is ranked. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No, they divide the schools into categories. One of them is "National Universities". There are 311 of those. LU is ranked 231-300 among those. That's LU's ranking. It's 311, not 2000. Please go read and understand the source. JohnInDC (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

ANRU, here is a link to the USNR methodology, describing how they categorize the schools, and rank them within their categories. As they explain, they only give individual ranks to the top 75% of schools in a particular category. Below that, the schools get a range - so, LU's ranking is "231-300" within National Universities. Also, sometimes for one or another reason, a school isn't assigned a ranking at all. The "National Universities" category includes 11 of those - hence 311 "National Universities", but rankings only to 300. Here too is a link to the specific LU page, that shows all its USNR rankings. I hope this helps. JohnInDC (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense I just made the jump of a total of 2000 schools because many aren't even ranked or put in the national university category. The ranking also doesn't say of 300 or anything like the sort, which was put into this article. And it's now coming out it's of 311 instead. I think in the lede a simple listing of the rankings, without any additions of out of how many makes sense, since that isn't the norm. I think we should also include other instances and rankings as well, which this university excels in (it's flight program is top ranked, same with others, ranks as the largest in physical acreage, ect) AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If the rankings don't include X out of Y, then the rankings will mislead readers. To be the 220-300th best university in the world is different than being 220-300 in a ranking of 300 schools. It's bizarre to maintain that it's outside of the norm. We have RS that use "lowest quartile" to help readers understand what the rankings mean, so the claim that it's out of the norm to describe these rankings in those terms is just blatantly false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No, ANRU, we are not obliged to balance a mediocre overall ranking - in the lede - with a single cherry-picked program that is well-regarded; particularly when, if you delve into the individual program rankings, there are many more that are middle of the pack or worse - like Engineering ranking (147 of 160) or the Online Bachelors ranking (184 of 357), Online MBA (139/282). JohnInDC (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That being said, if an RS has ranked one or another program highly then of course it can be included in the article text. JohnInDC (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, one of the multiple sources I added did mention that programs XYZ did OK, but I wonder if AlaskanNativeRU would accept those sources, seeing as how they are "Democratic news agencies". 14:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, show me another University article that uses that kind of terminology or comparison. I've never seen 'out of 300' on a university's page let alone the lede. That borders OR. One RS based on it's political stance that talks about the ranking doesn't matter, when we can use the actual ranking present. Which doesn't mention that. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant what other university articles do. If the other articles do not put rankings in the appropriate context, then that's not good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

24 hours of edit warring

There's been a lot of back and forth in the article content for the last day or so, each side reverting the other's edits while throwing out accusations of POV editing in edit summaries - and no Talk page discussion at all. I've reverted to a spot about a day ago, before the edit warring started, to help everyone start fresh and to Talk about contentious or contested edits beforehand rather than just sniping. Y'all are experienced enough as editors to know the right way to go about things - so please do it. My apologies to any editors whose GF non-edit war edits were wiped by my reversion. JohnInDC (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(1) Creationism should be described as pseudoscience per WP:FRINGE. (2) The crackpot conspiracy site WorldNetDaily does not belong in this or any Wikipedia article. (3) The NY Times is a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE it actually states "For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed." Which in this case, Liberty being a Christian university is actually a perfect example of not being pseudoscience. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, they teach it as part of a biology course, so it would appear that they're teaching it as science - which it isn't. It is certainly fair to say, as the article now does, that the school "teaches young Earth creationism as an explanation for the appearance of life on Earth"; the squirrelly part is the way that statement of religious principle immediately bleeds into discussion about science. A little legerdemain there, if you ask me. JohnInDC (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Creation science" and "creationism" are specifically mentioned multiple times in WP:FRINGE and are clearly described as pseudoscience there. The quote that you cherry-picked clearly supports labelling creationism as pseudoscience so it's weird to cherry-pick that sentence: "the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

How is that cherry-picking when it is literately about creationism and copied straight from WP:Fringe, exactly what we are discussing. WP Fringe makes absolutely no mention of labeling creationism as pseudoscience, because it is not. Liberty is a christian university and justifies its view of creationism by using its religion and the Bible. As such creationism in this article should be mentioned as stemming from its religious views- which it currently does. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE:

"To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation... Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists)..."

"Creation science and Intelligent design – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience..."

"Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed."

Stop wasting everyone's time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"As is common", still says nothing about the religious and political movements of this Christian university reasoning of having creationism, does it not. It is certainly not pseudoscience since its not actively attacking anything and instead religous, which is the point you clearly missed in all of that. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a religious belief. But when you teach it in your science class, it's pseudoscience - because it's religion dressed up to look like science. If Liberty wants to teach religion as science - well, that's why people send their kids there. But then they open themselves up to the observation (not "criticism", but "observation") that they're teaching pseudoscience. I'll try to find a simple way to work that concept in. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. IMHO you don't need to qualify young Earth creationism with the term "pseudoscience", because that's a defining characteristic of the belief. You could appropriately say that Liberty teaches creationism and leave it at that, if that were all there were to it; but there is some political / pseudoscientific sleight of hand in teaching this belief in the biology class. I've revised the sentence to expressly note that the school teaches creationism "as a science". That is true, and non-POV - because that's what they do - but the observation flags the school's maneuver because - well, creationism isn't science. It's like saying that the school teaches that "blue" is a flavor. Just make clear what's happening, and there's no need to draw further attention to it. JohnInDC (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we SHOULD clearly identify that it's pseudoscientific. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the WP:FRINGE noticeboard.[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like per WP:Fringe this question has already been asked and it is not pseudoscience. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Creationism posits that the existence was created by God. By itself, this is a religious belief. Where it accepts mainstream science, it is still a religious belief. Where it contradicts mainstream science for unscientific reasons, no matter how much it tries to disguise those reasons, it is pseudoscience.

Discretionary sanctions apply to pseudoscience topics. Creationism that counters mainstream science is listed as an example of fringe science -- for a reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think (hope) there's no disagreement about whether young earth creationism is a pseudoscience. Of course it is. The question is whether and how it needs to be identified as such when the term is used in a Wikipedia article. In a scientific context, absolutely. In a descriptive context - it's not so obvious. In this case, the first use of the term is in a general context, stating the (unadorned) truth that young earth creationism is taught at LU. IMHO there's no need to qualify that with any kind of adjective calling its scientific validity into question, because it's not - necessarily - presented as science. Of course in the very next sentence the observation is made that it's taught in biology class, as, presumably, "science" - in which case the distinction should be drawn out. To me it's all just a matter of copyediting, and figuring an elegant way of not letting the article sneak what's introduced as a religious concept into a scientific discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JohnInDC. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Troubling edits

These edits are indefensible[11]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing the statements on Trump...which are taking up most the history section for a university is indefensible? I made a pretty accurate and clear edit. You could easily add some parts back- but to mass revert edits (Which included other valuable additions; that US President Jimmy Carter just gave the commencement speech) and make a public freak out is laughable. Stay cool while editing, perhaps. And lets work on consolidating this bloated section about trump- and merging it into the politics section. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) The content that you mass-removed was widely reported by RS. There are no question about WP:DUE. The content is two short paragraphs, so your claim that it takes up "most the history section" is a blatant and extremely lazy lie (not the first one you've made on the talk page or in edit summaries). (2) You distorted what the sources said in an egregious fashion, adding your WP:OR spin on the content (not the first time you've done this to the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That's two whole paragraphs about what 'some students' (literately dozens - as was reported in the article) said or did about Trump. That's truly a historical event that belongs in the article... out of the hundreds of thousands who are associated with the school. And that historical event means nothing today, it is nonsense and not notable. It changed and did nothing. You are a losing editor who has Trump living in his brain rent free. Well done ruining more of Wikipedia - why don't you create sections of what "some students" do at other schools in every University article, that will surely make Wikipedia a better place and you appear less bias. This is something that is easily able to be summarized in a few sentences in an already existing section. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you outright lying again? The sources do not say that dozens protested Trump. "a statement issued by the group Liberty United Against Trump admonished Trump as well as Falwell for defending the then-candidate after he made vulgar comments about women in a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video. In the weeks that followed, more than 2,000 Liberty students and faculty signed the statement."[12] Snooganssnoogans 17:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There are ten RS cited in the disputed section, demonstrating beyond any doubt that this was a notable event for this university which passes WP:DUE with flying colors. And then there are plenty more sources that could be added. In terms of editors just gauging what they "feel" is notable, this content is indisputably notable. That a university renowned for its influence and role in Republican politics had vociferous opposition and fractures on campus regarding a Republican presidential candidate and president is just a blatantly notable episode in the history of the university. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha, I think you just used your own words to dig your own grave! Liberty United Against Trump isn't even an active or real group, its just a facebook page! And there's no way to verify the people who signed onto it were even associated with the school. Which further proves that it is shoddy journalism being used to direct a narrative. And what is this so-called historical group doing today, nothing. How is this being allowed on a Wikipedia article in the first place? This is more about Jerry Farwell and his connections to Trump and not about the University. What a joke. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There is extensive RS coverage of both specific protests/controversies at LU in 2016 and 2017, and general "fractures" / "divisions" at the University. Your "feels" about historical notability is contradicted by the depth and quantity of RS coverage. Your attempts to distort what the RS say to fit your feels are not appreciated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SS, you've used the term "your feels" in regard to other editors' opinions on content, reliable sources, and so on in other discussions/disputes at other article pages in the recent past. I think you've rung that bell too often, to be honest, as the behavior you're displaying is not only against policy, but it also does nothing to work toward a solution or consensus. In other words, it's counterproductive. It is time you stopped that behavior and started focusing on content rather than other editors (as has been suggested to you in other discussions, please see WP:FOC). Mocking other editors and personal attacks "are not appreciated". Please stop or you will be heading down the road to something more than the warning here (and the warnings you've received from past talk page discussions). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave you with this lesson, hopefully you learn from it unlike other times, or corrective action might have to be taken against you. Look at BMW's wiki page, there is thousands upon thousands of RS about BMW. Notice how not all of those thousands sources are in the article. Notice how instances of a 'few drivers' or otherwise unimportant information aren't being used. You need to educate yourself on how an encyclopedia should operate and learn to use your head- to make Wikipedia a better place (not just a place to direct a narrative to make you feel good about articles). In this instance, as is the case in every other article, it shouldn't be more than a few sentence summary or even included at all. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is that not every item discussed in every source (even reliable sources) should be in an encyclopedia article. I'd agree with Alaskan here in that the paragraphs seem to be undue weight given the scope of the events and the amount of total text. It also doesn't help your case when your tone is quite combative. All parties might like a reading of Wikipedia:The Rules of Polite Discourse with a cup of coffee in the morning. Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is sustained coverage over 2016 and 2017, including multiple events as well as general fractures/divisions on campus. On what basis are you determining that this content is undue? Are you seriously arguing that it's not notable at all that a university renowned for its influence in GOP politics had multiple protests and fractures on campus regarding both presidential candidate Trump and president Trump, and that extensive RS coverage of all specific events (as well as coverage of the "general mood" on campus) isn't a sign of weight at all? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The content that Snoogans wants restored overwhelms the section and throws the article out of balance. It is WP:UNDUE.– Lionel^(talk) 06:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the only reason that Lionelt and Winkelvi are on this page (a page that they've never edited before) is because they're stalking me and are making a habit of interjecting in talk page discussions on behalf of whomever I'm disagreeing with. Both of them have frivolously sought sanctions against me in the recent past, and Winkelvi even recently canvassed Lionelt to find something sanctionable about me. Just some context about recent comments on this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

False. I first edited this page in 2011. It's been on my watchlist ever since. You only arrived last month April 2018. You should check your facts before you make false accusations WP:NPA. – Lionel^(talk) 12:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh, yes, apparently you added a "WikiProject Conservatism" tag to the talk page in 2011... my bad. You add dozens such tags to pages every week - are they all on your watchlist too? Other than that, zero comments on the talk page and zero edits to the article. Well, I'm glad you've found a reason to chime into debates on this page again exactly when I started to edit it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Jumping back into this as Snooganssnoogans didn't seem to ever address the undue tag that was supported by other editors. Therefore I consolidated the Trump section into the politics section. It seems SS doesn't want to allow this. Which is strange because this is better summarized in a couple sentences as I have done. Is there a reason why you rather have a political attack on Trump on a university page? Also per this very own talk page it was agreed to remove the undue information.

Also why does the lede with outdate information keep getting restored. Per the own RS listed " and students can watch R-rated movies " yet SS keeps reverting it back to "The school's honor code prohibits premarital sex, dancing, R-rated movies and interactions alone with members of the opposite sex." AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain precisely what the discrepancy is between the sources. Is the only difference that students can now watch R-rated movies? If that's the case, why did you remove dancing from the lede? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion did not specify what Trump content should be kept and what should be deleted. There was certainly no one who argued that we should prioritize that LU was making a Trump film. Furthermore, the users Winkelvi and Lionelt are only in this discussion because they stalked me to this page and interjected on behalf of whomever I was debating (something they're making a habit of). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References

If you're confused maybe you shouldn't have started an edit-war (again) and hit the 3RR. Enough with claiming people are stalking you, remember you used the same nonsense with me and its unacceptable! The film portion is new information and not related to what " a few students " have to say about Trump, but I have no problems not including it as long as we focus the attention of this article to what the university does. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You followed me to the Dennis Kucinich page (a page you never edited before) and reverted me for BS reasons (you desperately wanted to keep text sourced to three dead primary sources and were unwilling to explain why).[13] The RS do not say that "a few students" protested Trump. We've been through this (in the discussion above you blatantly lied about there being "dozens of students" and I cited a RS which said "2000 students"). Do you have a bad memory? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not follow you to any page and that is completely unrelated to this talk page discussion. Also personal attacks are NOT allowed. If you remember correctly there was no way to verify (a random group, also '2000' out of the current 100k students and many more alumni, would constitute being labeled as 'few') and it was found to be undue! It has zero significance or impact on an encyclopedia about a university.

Back to the lede change that is still displaying incorrect information that was added by you. You should read articles you add to this wiki page if you're asking me if 'watching R-rated movies' is the only change, because its not and the edit I made to the lede was appropriate. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You know, I'm having trouble believing that an editor who disputed with me over content on the Liberty University page on 20 May, interjected in discussions on my talk page on 23 May to rant about me[14], and then reverted me[15] on the Dennis Kucinich page on 24 May less than 24 hrs after I edited the page found the page through some means besides stalking me there. Note that this is an editor who had prior to reverting me on the Dennis Kucinich page only edited one Wikipedia article on a US politician in 2018. You want to stick to your story of not stalking me there? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion would move so much more quickly forward if you'd explain what the discrepancy between the sources is, and how that relates to the content in the lede. I read the WaPo article and dancing is still prohibited (despite your removal of it) - what precisely is wrong with the current lede besides the r-rated movie stuff? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Guess what- none of that matters because it isn't true. Stop wasting time this is such a boring game you're trying to play. Quit worrying about being 'stalked' and others having it out for you. How about the fact you keep adding back undue information about Trump, let's consolidate that as was already agreed upon. Secondly in regards to the lede, the honor code is based on Christian principals and that should be added. Also 'dancing' is not prohibited, attending dances is, a big difference that was entirely fabricated up by you, I decided not to include a specific like that- since it wasn't emphasized in the RS, so I left the other two that were factually correct. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans feels like he is in the right and accuses you two of stalking him instead of accepting the fact that it is UNDUE. @Winkelvi: and @Lionelt: ... @Killiondude: , SS also doesn't value your input. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What is going on here? It looks like a wall of text littered with sniping. – Lionel^(talk) 04:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi AlaskanNativeRU (talk · contribs) and Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs). Your edit wars are tiresome. Please stop before a call is made for some sort of editing restriction. Killiondude (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

These are the facts: more than 15,000 students are enrolled on campus and more than 94,000 students are enrolled online.[16] Should the text say "As of 2017, the university enrolls more than 15,000 students at its Lynchburg campus and more than 94,000 students in online courses" or "As of 2017, the university enrolls more than 15,000 students at its Lynchburg campus and 110,000 students including online courses"? I prefer the former because it's precise, and because the latter makes it unclear how many precisely are enrolled online. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The numbers are "more than 15,000", "more than 94,000", and 110,000. There's no earthly reason they can't all just be stated right there, and that's what I've done. JohnInDC (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Professor's background

@Snooganssnoogans:, @AlaskanNativeRU: If Wikipedia readers want to learn about Liberty U., they should not find a censored page. If students are contemplating going to Liberty Law School, they should know who's teaching them. If parents are sending their child to Liberty, they should receive the same consideration. The school hired a politician who has effectively been permanently disbarred in his home state over chronic seriously bad behavior, which included lying to judges, gross breaches in maintaining security of confidential files, regularly appearing on Bill O'Brien's show on which he revealed confidential information, in order to vilify a Kansas doctor who had previously been shot in both arms, who had his clinic burned down, who had charges filed against him by Klein for purely political purposes, and who finally was killed in that hostile atmosphere while ushering in his church by a member of a radical group with whom Kline was closely allied. Kline lost his license to practice in Kansas for good cause, but spent years appealing frivolous reinstatement cases to the state supreme court, the federal district court, the U.S. Supreme Court, and for that, the Kansas taxpayers paid $600,000 in his legal fees. Liberty has him teaching ethics, and if a prospective student reads nothing but the glowing bio on Liberty's website, they would be unaware of the major ethical problems in that hire, which has continued for nine years. Your position is akin to arguing that Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky should not be mentioned on the Penn State web article. Activist (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources you cite are entirely about Phill Kline, and thus I agree on removing the material you added - they don't make any connection to Liberty University apart from mentioning that he works there. They don't talk about the university's hiring practices in relation to him etc. Because the sources aren't about the university the material fails relevance and weight. Comparatively for Sandusky, it was a major scandal with the president of the university resigning etc. People can balance the glowing bio by reading our article on him. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Are ProPublica and the NY Times not RS?

One editor believes that they can't be used as sources here (the same editor cites WorldNetDaily... but that's a separate issue). Does the editor care to explain his/her thinking?

Those two sources aren't particularly bad but the way they are being used is. Its not a secret the NYT is a left leaning website so one must be cautious when they do an article about a conservative leaning university. Most of the information from that article is from unverifiable claims of a 'former-employee' and honestly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. An entire section of the Wiki shouldn't be made just because of one NYT's article, that is disingenuous. If you're going to make a section called marketing and sales practices, first off, why? I have yet to see any other college have that displayed. And second off, why wouldn't you put the university's own practices and not just an outside NYT article? This is not being approached with a NPOV and should be fully discussed. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The NYT is a reliable source. Period. If you're unhappy with the weight that a particular article is being given in the article, argue about that, but please don't get started in on pointless name calling. JohnInDC (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(1) ProPublica and NYT are RS. The text is not "unverifiable"... it's sourced to ProPublica and the NYT. (2) A section called marketing and recruitment practices was created because it received RS coverage. More sources can of course be added (there are plenty on the marketing and recruitment practices of this university) but it's impossible to gradually build an encyclopedia when every edit, no matter how big or small, that references the NY Times has been removed indiscriminately by you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That's what RSs do - they check facts and correct errors when they make them. A fair question is whether a single article by even an unimpeachably reliable source deserves an entire section in the article. That's up for debate, I suppose. Less up for debate, if the issue has been the subject of reporting in other RSes as well. It might be helpful to take the discussion in that direction. JohnInDC (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I supported the move to the Liberty University Online section and included it there, with the purpose of discussing it further to see if it should even belong in the article. To say I removed it completely is untrue, but I don't think it should have its own section. By the way ProPublica is funded by liberal activist George Soros (not exactly a neutral source to be including). Also Snooganssnoogans included exaggerated information that wasn't even said in the NYT's article stating "Graduates at the university have a vastly higher rate of defaults within three years of completing their studies than students at other nonprofit colleges" and "dubious online academic standards". Not NPOV or how it was written. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop arguing about whether a source is "left leaning" or "right leaning" or "smack down the middle" or whatever your own particular POV is. The questions are, are the edits supported by RSs, and, is the information being given undue weight. Oh, and of course is it accurately portrayed in the article text. The rest is just name-calling and isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you. JohnInDC (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(1) The text completely adheres to the sources that were cited. In fact, the Vox article described Liberty Online University as "low-quality" if I recall correctly. For me to describe it as of "dubious academic standards" is not only perfectly consistent with the sources but milder language than the one used in the sources. (2) ProPublica is a RS. I dare you to go to the RS noticeboard with "Are ProPublica and the NY Times RS?". It would be the shortest discussion that board has ever seen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

To the subject of if its being given undue weight, perhaps it is for its own section. This article isn't from the schools accreditation boards or the US Government, so trying to knock the academic standards or any other practices is undue (not even considering talking about the articles own faults though, which there are many). AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If RS "knock the academic standards or any other practices", then it's WP:DUE. Nobody is gonna dig through government documents, that's WP:OR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The point is NYT and others would report that if there was any basis (ie: Accreditation agency or US Government knocking academic standards) but there is none. At least its WP:Undue do to NYT/ProPublica having little to no involvement in the area, compared to the actual accreditation agency or US Government, or even US News/Forbes/ Other college rankings. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't need a government agency finding to ascertain whether a school has poor academic standards, any more than you need the NCAA to say a school has a good football team. Please stop arguing the competence of the source, ANRU. JohnInDC (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've quickly reviewed the paragraph reporting on the NYT article and think that much of the material can be distributed around the article rather than presented as a lump, in its own section. Parts can go to Finances; parts can go to Academics (e.g. if the school takes anyone with a GPA over 0.5, that's certainly pertinent); there's probably a place for the marketing part too. I will try to tackle that later today. JohnInDC (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but is it even true that they take anyone with a GPA over .5 ? The source in the NYT article was a former employee, NYT did no other research to verify that claim. Its at least worth mentioning that the University and the University President refute that claim. "The minimum GPA for admittance in good standing is 2.0. And the lowest GPA possible for admittance is 1.5—but even those cases are few, involving students who make an appeal and enter with an “on caution” status with agreed-upon conditions for continuance. So, the 30-year old who a decade earlier skipped algebra class endlessly to step outside and get high — we have a pathway they can walk down to prove themselves worthy of higher education. We make no apologies for this. But admitting a 0.5 GPA student? No." https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jerry-falwell-jr-liberty-university-growth-lynchburg/2018/04/20/id/855785/

There are other disagreements, but I believe if you put both sides then it would be fair. Nice work JohnInDC. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Falwell's rebuttal, if attributed, can certainly be added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Those most recent edits are definitely not NPOV and show a clear bias and hatred against the university. How is this blatantly being allowed? Clearly democratic news agency's that attack the President and conservatives will just attack Liberty. Where is the equal and fair coverage? We should have more editors here with different viewpoints to craft a more neutral article. Instead just Snooganssnoogans who is clearly biased on politically related topics. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Completely false. The sources are all high-quality reliable sources. The notion that any of them are "democratic news agency's" is absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There may be issues in the way the articles are summarized, but I don't see what the problem is in reporting, for example, that the self-proclaimed Christian school requires Bible courses, or teaches creationism as science, or is poorly rated along several academic measures, or spends less per class than its peers, or engages in unusual recruitment and / or marketing strategies. Are those observations unfair? JohnInDC (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm more talking about the Trump and Republican hate that was added in those recent edits that clearly don't belong in this article. As well as undue weight on this source, along with incomplete rebuttals. Why is the source that Jerry Farlwell is the University president one titled 'How Trump Is Dividing Jerry Falwell's University"'. I mean come on guys. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The section in question is probably the most well-sourced section in the whole article. I count roughly a dozen sources. The title that leads you to say "come on guys" is perfectly fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think some of those items belonged up front in the "History" section and so I collected a few and moved them further down. IMHO the problems were more of placement and prominence than sourcing. JohnInDC (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding creationism, I changed the word "notion" which I feel borders on a pejorative about a religious credo, to "belief," which I think is more respectful and NPOV. I also supplied citations that indicate, i.e., that 99.9% of life scientists reject "young earth creationism." I found another figure that quantified the number as about one in 700 of such scientists reject the theory of evolution which if I am correct is about 99.86%. Activist (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)