| Revision as of 23:28, 5 April 2006 editJJay (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,366 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:52, 6 April 2006 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →Debate controversy: Not so fast. That's not what WP:RS saysNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| :''Critics have alleged that the Liberty Debate team accumulates points by sending lots of teams to small tournaments while avoiding known debate champions like Michigan State, Berkeley, Dartmouth and Harvard, instead favoring lesser ranked opponents like Kings College, Army and Richmond. '''' | :''Critics have alleged that the Liberty Debate team accumulates points by sending lots of teams to small tournaments while avoiding known debate champions like Michigan State, Berkeley, Dartmouth and Harvard, instead favoring lesser ranked opponents like Kings College, Army and Richmond. '''' | ||
| -- ] 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | -- ] 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :You've misunderstood ]. Blogs are not suitable as secondary sources. As primary sources, as a source of what a particular blogger says, they are perfectly acceptable. I've restored the content. ] 01:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:52, 6 April 2006
"Very high academic status"? Do you have a source for this? Dpol 12:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I completed the page from the stub. --Chandler2525 00:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Academic Standing
I agree with the lack of source about the high academic status...
Also, based on looking at this page: http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=1378, is it safe to assume visiting Liberty is like traveling into Salem, MA during the late 1600's? Rtcpenguin
Despite its name...
I reverted this a while ago and I'm reverting it again. In this edit Rtcpenguin adds the little play on the university's name which I find rather amusing. However, it is nothing more than an attack. We cannot objectively quantify the liberty at Liberty University and there is no place for insulting the university. Ask some of the admins about neutrality and I'm pretty sure that they'd agree with me... it's just a matter of writing in neutral language, and not attacking language. gren グレン 21:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Debate
According to a google search, there is no such thing as the 'National Debate Association'. While at first, I would assume that they meant the National Parliamentary Debate Association, this is incorrect as they do policy debate, which is different than parliamentary debate. This leads me to believe that claims about its status are incorrect, and maybe should be corrected?
- It's called the National Debate Tournament. FeloniousMonk 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
A Wikicuriosity
The sentence pulled from the article says that an accrediting agency's recognition was revoked. The provided reference says it is still recognized. How many of these have slipped into Misplaced Pages unnoticed, by one POV pusher or another. Pollinator 05:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- You could have looked at the links and fixed the error instead of making a POV claim. So it was on probation to lose its license for 18 months. You could have put that in instead of removing it all. Now everything is fixed and sourced anyway. Arbusto 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- You should mention this to User:Arbustoo. He has been plastering it all over the place, e.g. TRACS, ICR, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No Jobs (talk • contribs)
- No_ Jobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a confirmed sock puppet of banned User:Jason Gastrich who has a POV problem and issues with anyone who posts any controversy in articles relating to his fundamentalist beliefs. Arbusto 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- You should mention this to User:Arbustoo. He has been plastering it all over the place, e.g. TRACS, ICR, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No Jobs (talk • contribs)
Debate controversy
I'm removing the following section of the article related to controversy concerning the debate team. The entire section is sourced to a blog post. Per WP:RS, blogs can not be used as sources. if someone has a valid source for the material please add it back to the article.
- The touting of this by Liberty has lead to some controversy, as the overall ranking included results for novice and junior varsity debates. In varsity rankings, Liberty was twentieth. Excessive media recognition of "the best debate team in the nation" has sparked anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.
- Critics have alleged that the Liberty Debate team accumulates points by sending lots of teams to small tournaments while avoiding known debate champions like Michigan State, Berkeley, Dartmouth and Harvard, instead favoring lesser ranked opponents like Kings College, Army and Richmond. ''
-- JJay 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- You've misunderstood WP:RS. Blogs are not suitable as secondary sources. As primary sources, as a source of what a particular blogger says, they are perfectly acceptable. I've restored the content. FeloniousMonk 01:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)