Talk:Liberty University - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atsme (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 2 June 2018 (→Discussion: whoa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:31, 2 June 2018 by Atsme (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: whoa)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberty University article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Baptist Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Baptist work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Virginia High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Controversy surrounding Liberty was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 June 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Liberty University. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Sparky (Mascot) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 January 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Liberty University. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberty University article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 2016-08-24 by AntiCompositeNumber (talk · contribs).

Gestrid (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Declaration)
Nyttend (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. (Declaration)

Quiz bowl

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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

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 Misplaced Pages editors use Carnegie Classifications but I am in the process of systematically examining Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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. 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:

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. 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: . 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. . 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 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)

Troubling edits

These edits are indefensible. 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 Misplaced Pages - why don't you create sections of what "some students" do at other schools in every University article, that will surely make Misplaced Pages 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." 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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)

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). 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, and then reverted me 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 Misplaced Pages 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 04:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC on LU's relationship with Trump

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This text is currently under dispute, with some editors arguing that it does not belong on Liberty University's Misplaced Pages page or that it should be trimmed (the formatting for the following three sources in the first sentence got screwed up ):

In 2016, a student editor said that an opinion column critical of presidential candidate Donald Trump was censored by LU's president Jerry Falwell Jr. The column was written after a video was released showing Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women. Trump's candidacy caused fractures at the university, as a number of students disagreed with Trump, protested the university's ties with Trump, and were critical of Falwell Jr.'s staunch support of Trump. Mark DeMoss, chief of staff of Falwell Sr., was forced to resign from Liberty’s board of trustees after criticizing the university's close affiliation with Trump. Liberty University rescinded a speaking invitation of Jonathan Merritt, an alumnus of the school, after he criticized Liberty University, and expelled Christian author Jonathan Martin from campus due to his repeated criticisms of the university's affiliation with Trump.

Some students protested again when President Trump equated white supremacists with counter-protesters at a white supremacist march in Charlotesville, Virginia. After Trump's remarks, Liberty University president Falwell Jr. said that he was “so proud” of Trump for his “bold truthful” statement on the tragedy. A number of students returned their diplomas to Liberty University and called on the university to disavow Trump's remarks. The students argued that Trump's remarks were "incompatible with Liberty University’s stated values, and incompatible with a Christian witness."

Does this belong? If something should be trimmed, what precisely should be trimmed? Note that the content is extremely well-sourced, covers a number of notable events (student protests, senior staff resigning, speakers being disinvited) and covers events that are of obvious importance to a university that plays a prominent role in Republican politics. Consider for example if LU was "fractured" in the early 2000s over the university's relationship to George W. Bush (or Ronald Reagan in the 80s) during his presidency with prominent student protests, students returning diplomas, senior staff resigning and alumni speakers being disinvited, and that all of this was reported by 9 reliable sources. Would anyone seriously argue that such content would not have encyclopedic value (an interesting notable episode in the history of this university) and easily fulfill Wiki policy requirements? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(Update) More reporting on this topic in just the last few days:

WaPo on LU alumni reaction to a pro-Trump film by LU: "More than 1,900 people, some who identify themselves as students or graduates of the Lynchburg, Va., school — one of the largest Christian universities in the world — have signed a petition demanding the cancellation of the project."
Vox: "Over the past few years, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s vocal support for Trump has often put him at odds with faculty and the university’s students. Last year, an anti-Trump pastor was booted off campus after coming to pray with students, while earlier this year, a progressive Christian protest at Lynchburg vocally denounced Falwell’s pro-Trump and GOP-specific policies."
NY Times article on LU's response to a liberal evangelical group in Lynchburg: "in addition to banning the Red Letter Christians from campus, forbade the Liberty University student newspaper from covering the revival." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Above the Law. "The Law Schools With The Most Unemployed Graduates".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/30/the-worlds-largest-christian-university-relaxes-some-rules-for-students/
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Liberty_University&diff=843869500&oldid=843868856
^ "Falwell censored anti-Trump column, Liberty U student editor says". POLITICO. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference :6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Shapiro, T. Rees; Bailey, Sarah Pulliam; Svrluga, Susan; Clement, Scott (2016-10-13). "Liberty University students protest association with Trump". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
^ "Liberty University booted an anti-Trump Christian author from campus". Vox. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
Merritt, Jonathan. "Why Liberty University Kicked an Anti-Trump Christian Author Off Campus". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
^ Schmidt, Samantha; Wang, Amy B. (2017-08-21). "Jerry Falwell Jr. keeps defending Trump as Liberty University grads return diplomas". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
"Some Liberty University Grads Are Returning Their Diplomas To Protest Trump". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
"Liberty University Alumni Return Diplomas in Protest of Trump Remarks". The New York Times. 2017-08-21. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-04-24.

Survey

Support: the content is reasonable. I would start with "Trump's candidacy caused...". however, and omit the two sentences starting with "In 2016, a student editor said..." as it sounds too much like news reporting. The rest is WP:DUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Updated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support: The Washington Post today is reporting further on the film and the reactions of some alumni, and some Christians. The school has produced a movie - "Liberty's largest film production to date" - to promote the idea that Trump's election reflects God's direct intervention in the 2016 election. Liberty's relationship with Trump is extensively documented and I would venture to say accounts for a substantial percentage of RS coverage of the school over the past couple of years. While the article text need not delve into every fold and crenelation of the relationship, it seems hard to call the coverage "undue". JohnInDC (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. Article is about the university, not Trump. The content appears to be an attempt to make the article (or a section of the article) about Trump. This is blatant and classic WP:UNDUE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The content is about the University's relationship with Trump, a subject of extensive RS coverage, and of great significance to the functioning of the university (senior staff resigning, numerous students protests, censorship of student criticism, bans on alumni speakers). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"The content is about the University's relationship with Trump" Got it. It is, and the whole premise is, undue weight for an encyclopedia article about a university. Let me say that more clearly: The article is about a university, not the POTUS. Article content weight should be focused on the university/academic aspect of LU, not peripheral topics. "subject of extensive RS coverage" See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONUS. The onus is on the pro-inclusion folks in this discussion to prove a need for this weight based on whether or not the content improves the article/better informs the reader about the university. I say it does not and that you have not proven a need for inclusion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Senior staff resigning, numerous students protests, censorship of student criticism, and bans on alumni speakers are not related to the university/academic aspect of LU? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A mention is all it deserves. In fact, the entire subsection titled "Donald Trump" is an egregious violation of WP:WEIGHT. Blatant attempt to turn yet another article into an anti-Trump screed. In my opinion, it's quite strange that those who hate Trump and see Trump around every corner are allowing him so much "airtime" in their thoughts, allowing him to live rent-free in their heads. Reminds me of those involved in various religions who see their theological devil hiding in the bushes everywhere ready to jump out and attack them at any given moment. Would we allow such fanatical true-believerism to become the focus in other articles? No, we wouldn't -- precisely one of the reasons why WP:UNDUE exists. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one organizing student protests at LU, forcing staff to resign, forcing alumni to hand in their diplomas, censoring student newspapers, banning alumni speakers from LU's campus and orchestrating coverage of this by a dozen reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Last I checked, WEIGHT depended on the coverage in reliable sources, i.e "subject of extensive RS coverage" is precisely how we would determine whether it is important enough for inclusion, not whether you WP:DONTLIKEIT Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article is about the University and not the President, but this is a university that injected itself into partisan politics in a way that few others in the United States have. Omitting the school's support for right-wing politicians, and the current president (including the campus reaction to it), would be like not mentioning, oh, the political activity of Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby because they're retail merchants, not PACs. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well said. ElKevbo (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to substantiate what John is saying, this is how RS describe the university and its role in politics: a "stage of choice in Republican presidential politics", a "pilgrimage site for GOP candidates" and a "bastion of the Christian right". The notion that this Misplaced Pages should be prohibited from covering LU's role in politics is absurd, as it's an intrinsic part of the school's identity and notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to add some reality and perspective, those descriptions are politically biased, intended to persuade readers that Liberty U is baaaaad and comparable to Westboro Baptist Church. It's not as if the Washington Post isn't known for that kind of anti-Conservative/anti-GOP spin. If any editor can't recognize the forest for the trees, I have to wonder if WP:COMPETENCY isn't an issue as far as being unable to separate the wheat from the chaff. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Doesn't seem unreasonable as it is now. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. I've made my points well known above. It is WP:UNDUE and the actions of Snooganssnoogans throughout this whole process have been a disgusting violation of WP:NPA WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. This deserves a couple sentence summary at BEST (not its own section), including the mention of the unparalleled support of Trump by students/faculty at the university. After that it should never be expanded anymore as this article is about a UNIVERSITY not a political extension of Trump to be bashed further. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"the unparalleled support of Trump by students/faculty at the university" - if you have a reliable source for this, I'd love to add it and I would definitely defend its inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That's easy to find, did you forgot this is one of the most conservative university's in America? But that isn't the point, Donald Trump should not be its own section in an article about a University - which is what this discussion is about. And again why did you make a separate discussion and vote after the 1st one went against what you wanted? AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If it's so easy to find, find it. I don't recall seeing anything about "unparalleled support of Trump by students/faculty" in RS. Your characterization of the last discussion and the "vote" is incorrect, and I've already explained to you why this discussion was started. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support along with the changes K.e coffman mentioned; I think it with the other political stuff makes a lot of sense as a politics section. The universities association with Trump and the controversy around that is a notable aspect of it, with well enough sustained high-quality RS coverage to be ~2-3% of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió)
Support - The material is appropriate in weight given the number and quality of sources. I also agree with K.e.coffman's suggested changes. Bare assertions of WP:UNDUE are poorly-reasoned. In fact, such arguments are kind of ludicrous when the article is rife with mind-numbing trivia about the campus, sourced to the subject itself! The article needs a cut and trim, and better WP:PROPORTION. - Mr X 🖋 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per the reasoning stated by Winkelvi. This is article about the university. To be consistent with other major university articles the inclusion would be undue. The above content could be a separate article if notable, or, it could be included on the Donald Trump article. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No, please (re)familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV; whether something is undue or not is not determined by "consistency" with other university articles but coverage in reliable sources, of which there are many for this section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(1) what other Misplaced Pages articles do is irrelevant, (2) I think you may be underestimating LU's ties to politics. LU is deeply tied into conservative politics in the United States, and has been described as a "stage of choice in Republican presidential politics", a "pilgrimage site for GOP candidates" and a "bastion of the Christian right". What LU does in the political sphere and the politics on its campus is therefore an important component of the university. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Weak support There are sufficient reliable sources to merit including this information in the article. It also seems to be important in helping readers understand the university's place in the larger national context especially as the university's administration and many others associated with the institution have embraced politics and sought to place the university squarely into that arena. ElKevbo (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Support - Per the opposes, who say this article is about the university. Well, the university's relationship with Trump is indeed significant to the staff and students, and hence about the university.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"the university's relationship with Trump is indeed significant to the staff and students, and hence ... the university" The university has been in existence for a few decades. In all that time, Trump's less-than-minor connection with it in the last two years hasn't even been a blip on the university's radar. Every university has "moments" such as student protest over an individual/individuals with notariety - we aren't documenting those in detail or creating article sections about those -1 minute of fame moments. Yes, I know: "other stuff exists". But let's apply some WP:COMMONSENSE borne out of policy here: WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - per UNDUE without a doubt and also NOTNEWS - the material is cited to flash-in-the-plan click-bait reporting dating back to the campaign (2016). It is highly inconsequential, and appears to be an attempt to pass the blame for untoward behavior by a small group of protestors when their behavior rests entirely on them. WP is not a SOAPBOX to be used to publicize political actions resulting from campaign protests, ~~and because of the contentious nature of the material in question, this consensus needs wider input from the community; therefore, I'm of the mind that an RfC in order.~~ 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an RfC? (converted to one by Winkelvi somewhat after Snoogans started the discussion) Also sources are from 20156 to 2018, not flash in the pan. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I struck - apologies - not sure why I thought it was local. 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources are from 2016 to 2018 (and cover a range of events, including student protests, senior staff resigning, student newspapers being censored and alumni speakers getting banned). I do not have a clue what you're referring to with this: "appears to be an attempt to pass the blame for untoward behavior by a small group of protestors when their behavior rests entirely on them". Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the text and the sources before declaring yourself "strong oppose". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please list the sources that are published beyond 2017 regarding the statements being proposed, some of which are presented in WikiVoice. The fact remains that it was a small group of protestors - political opposition - who began their protests in 2016 - campaign protesting, normal - the related news sources are dated 2016. Then came the film in 2017 that caused another protest, same song, second verse. The proposed statements of opinion regarding Trump are written in WikiVoice which is a no-no. If you listened to the locker-room talk, Trump did actually commit/admit to sexual "assault" on anyone to my knowledge, so saying he was boasting about sexually assaulting women is taken out of context and misleading - read what he actually said. Also, there is nothing in the proposed material that represents all views which is required by BALANCE, and so is the inclusion of what other RS have published - among them, the most important being the view of the university which is actually prevalent in the cited sources. University students protesting is not unusual or notable when it involves small numbers; it's expected - that's what happens on campuses - so unless they're destroying property, the police are involved and/or something significant actually happened to give it lasting value/notability, the proposed statements lacks encyclopedic value and come across as SOAPBOX and an effort to support or add notability to a fringe group's protest. Protests by political opposition are routine, and this is more of the same flash-in-the-pan protesting which makes it UNDUE - NOTNEWS and unencylopedic. WikiTribune might like it, but then, it's old news now. And again, just because it's newsworthy doesn't make it encyclopedic. 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources are all above. If we tweak the language of Trump's boasts of sexual assault, would you support inclusion? Which "view of the university which is actually prevalent in the cited sources" should be included? Again, this talk of a "fringe group's protest" is not how RS cover it, and talk of a "fringe group's protest" is bizarre when RS talk about fractures and divisions on campus, senior staff resigning, student newspapers being censored and alumni speakers being banned from coming. Note that this is a conservative university which has been described as the "bastion of the Christian right" and a "stage of choice in Republican presidential politics" - that's one reason why it's notable that these events are occurring at the school. This is not just a random school protesting random things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There isn't much difference between "small group" and "fringe". While minority views should be represented, I fail to see how the proposed treatment of it is encyclopedic, especially considering the protests represent a rather small and relatively insignificant event as it relates to the university's overall existence; therefore it is UNDUE. I have not seen any opposing arguments that persuade me to change my position. Blaming Trump for the decisions of university administration and protests by a small group of detractors is just plain nonsense. 20:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose - concerns about WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE are reasonable. This article is primarily about Liberty University, while this content is tangentially about the university, it would be like giving significant weight about the efforts by "anti-fa" groups to remove speakers who are not left of the United States political center from University of California, Berkeley. A mention of it can be included, but if the topic has received so much significant coverage that it passed WP:GNG, go make that article. But when it is done ensure that it is follows the pillar of neutrality to a T; then make a link to it here, with a very brief and neutrally worded summary of that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Mm. If Berkeley were co-producing a movie about how Anti-fa groups were put on the planet to do God's work, you'd see a good bit more about it on those article pages. JohnInDC (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been listed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of you, but there sure seems to be a disconnect between listing this article on WikiProject Conservatism and then arguing that LU's involvement in politics and relationship with Trump should be scrubbed in full from the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Look at the top of the talk page for what projects are connected to the article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and it's also been listed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity/Baptist work group, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Virginia, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities at the same time it was listed at Project Conservatism. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support - The content is extremely well-sourced, covers a number of notable events (student protests, senior staff resigning, speakers being disinvited) and covers events that are of obvious importance to a university that plays a prominent role in Republican politics. I think many of the 'oppose' votes above which are puzzled of politics-related content for a university do not realize that this school has been described by RS as a "stage of choice in Republican presidential politics", a "pilgrimage site for GOP candidates" and a "bastion of the Christian right". Politics is intrinsic to Liberty University's identity and notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

There is already a section for this and a general consensus was reached that it was WP:UNDUE. I'll refer you to it seeing how that's were all discussions about this exact topic have been taken place. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Liberty_University#Troubling_edits , no clue why you decided to make another section.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

One editor (Lionelt) (Personal attack removed) argued that the content was UNDUE without elaborating any further. Another editor (Killiondude) said "that the paragraphs seem to be undue weight given the scope of the events and the amount of total text," without specifying what should be cut and what should be kept. So, two people agreed with you, one of whom stalked me here to oppose me and another who did not specify what should be done with the text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

They clearly agreed with the way I summarized the text (the whole reason that discussion was started), what more do you need. You creating a new section after the previous discussion ended against what you wanted is not right. Also enough of the attacks, it violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Snoogans there are numerous editors who have been to this article in the last several days who have all rejected your proposed edits. you are hundreds of miles away from a consensus. (Personal attack removed) – Lionel 04:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly SOAPBOX, UNDUE, NOTNEWS - news of the small group of dissenters was published in 2016, and then came another reason for that group to protest in 2017 - this small group attempted to create a Facebook page which no longer exists. Sorry, but I'm not even sure a sentence or two is even warranted. Being covered in RS may make it newsworthy, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Poof it's forgotten in two years...maybe less...no enduring value. Of far more value & relevance (DUE) would be the position of the university regarding contentious matters. Students come and go, they mature, their lives change and what they may have felt at the moment of protest may or may not mean anything years from now. I don't see this protest as I would a 1960s bra-burning on campus. 17:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly not any of those things.- Mr X 🖋 17:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I must be older than you. 😊 18:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I know I am. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note re: "coverage" I see about a dozen uses of the word "covered"/"coverage" in this RfC in the context of sourcing. Perhaps it's now important to point out (for the 100th time) that Misplaced Pages is not news and is not meant to "cover" a news story? And with that, WP:FART also comes to mind. This is an encyclopedia, folks - not a newspaper, not a news-reporting website. If writing content for what's being covered in the news is your thing and/or passion, maybe WikiNews is where you belong rather than Misplaced Pages. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You've made your viewpoint abundantly clear. If you don't have anything new to say, please back off and let others discuss the issue instead of telling those who disagree with you to leave the project. ElKevbo (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

^^^BATTLEGROUND^^^ - please limit your comments to content, not editors. 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Categories: