Jump to content

Talk:Liberty University: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
人族 (talk | contribs)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header |search=yes }}
{{WikiProject Virginia|class=B |priority=}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity |importance=Mid |baptist-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Virginia| importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Evangelical Christianity|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Higher education}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Mid}}
}}
{{afd-merged-from|Controversy surrounding Liberty|Controversy surrounding Liberty|15 June 2012}}
{{afd-merged-from|Sparky (Mascot)|Sparky (Mascot)|26 January 2009|date=March 2009}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Liberty University/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Connected contributor
| checked = 2016-08-24 by {{user|AntiCompositeNumber}}
| User1 = Gestrid | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes |U1-otherlinks = [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Gestrid&oldid=730688484 Declaration] |U1-banned = no
| User2 = PCHS-NJROTC | U2-EH = yes| U2-declared = yes | U2-banned = no |U2-otherlinks =
}}


== New section for Liberty University's ties to white supremacy and authoritarianism? ==
Removed the picture under the "Sports" heading. Far from being a photo of the Flames heading into a game, it was pretty obviously a generic computer-generated image of football players.


Do we need a new section for Liberty University's ties to [[white supremacy]] and [[authoritarianism]]? For example, it appears that LU was formed under white supremacy, at least from what a recent New Yorker article stated.
"Very high academic status"? Do you have a source for this? [[User:Dpol|Dpol]] 12:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


According to the Daily Kos, Jerry Falwell Sr. "was a rabid segregationist in the 1950s and 1960s, railing against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and insisting that Jim Crow laws were God’s will."<ref>{{cite web |first1=greatly concerned |title=The Fascist, Theocratic Vision Behind the “Moral Majority,” The Heritage Foundation, CNP, etc. |url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/10/2/2055571/-What-Was-the-Real-Reason-for-the-Moral-Majority-amp-What-Was-Paul-Weyrich-s-Radical-Vision |website=www.dailykos.com |publisher=Daily Kos |access-date=5 June 2022}}</ref>
I completed the page from the stub. --[[User:Chandler2525|Chandler2525]] 00:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


According to Megan Stack "The university has its roots in the Lynchburg Christian Academy—later renamed [[Liberty Christian Academy]]—which opened in 1967, as the movement to compel the integration of public schools was consuming the South." Admittedly, there have been faculty, staff, and students that have pushed back on the white supremacist environment. <ref>{{cite web |last1=Stack |first1=Megan |title=Can Liberty University Be Saved |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/can-liberty-university-be-saved |website=www.newyorker.com |publisher=New Yorker |access-date=4 June 2022}}</ref>
== Controversies ==


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


In 2020, Pentecostal pastor Christopher A. House resigned after Liberty University president, [[Jerry Falwell Jr.]], "announced on [[Twitter]] that he had designed a face mask decorated with a photo of someone wearing blackface standing next to another individual wearing a [[KKK]] robe."<ref>{{cite web |last1=House |first1=Chritopher A. |title=Why I resigned from Liberty University: Because Black Lives Matter |url=https://religionnews.com/2020/06/02/why-i-resigned-from-liberty-university-because-black-lives-matter/ |website=religionnews.com |publisher=Religion News Service |access-date=11 June 2022}}</ref>LeeQuan McLaurin, a worker at LU's Office of Equity and Inclusion, and Thomas Starchia, associate director in the Office of Spiritual Development, also resigned. McLaurin said that “I cannot encourage students of color to go to that university the way that it is.” <ref>{{cite web |last1=Graham |first1=Ruth |title=“I Suppressed So Much of My Humanity in Being Here” |url=https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/06/liberty-university-black-students-faculty.html |website=slate.com |publisher=Slate |access-date=11 June 2022}}</ref>
These controversies are listed by people who wish to piggy-back off of this article to gain recognition for their own cause.


In terms of its ties to authoritarianism, Liberty is the only school not to rescind the honorary degree it awarded [[Donald Trump]] after the [[2021 United States Capitol attack|January 6, 2021 insurrection]]. <ref>{{cite web |last1=Nietzel |first1=Michael |title=Liberty Is Now The Only University To Not Rescind Donald Trump’s Honorary Degrees |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2021/01/09/liberty-is-now-the-only-university-to-not-rescind-donald-trumps-honorary-degrees/?sh=6c01e1b310b9 |website=www.forbes.com |publisher=Forbes |access-date=4 June 2022}}</ref>--[[User:CollegeMeltdown|CollegeMeltdown]] ([[User talk:CollegeMeltdown|talk]]) 15:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is so biased against Liberty...because it is edited by a bunch of Christ haters.


{{reflist-talk}}
== Dead Link ==
I removed the US News & World Report link because it is dead.


: An article for [[Liberty Christian Academy]] exists and confirms that institution was once segregated. The statement that the university "has its roots" in the academy is kind of vague, however. Does anyone know of a source that's more specific on their relationship? [[User:Jno.skinner|Jno.skinner]] ([[User talk:Jno.skinner|talk]]) 22:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
== Vandalism Protection ==


:I second this. At the very least there must be a criticisms page considering the tremendous controversies the university has been tied too. [[Special:Contributions/2601:282:167F:1300:842F:AA0F:FD8B:D49D|2601:282:167F:1300:842F:AA0F:FD8B:D49D]] ([[User talk:2601:282:167F:1300:842F:AA0F:FD8B:D49D|talk]]) 06:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Can we do something to protect the Liberty University page from vandalism? Lock it from anonymous IPs? Anyone?


== Liberty University Wikipedia page is biased ==
== Academic Standing ==


The Liberty University Wikipedia page a prime example of why no one trusts Wikipedia. Just the History section alone is completely one-sided. What a joke this website is. Lol [[Special:Contributions/2601:342:C002:27B0:3D0E:8BDC:4A44:C2EA|2601:342:C002:27B0:3D0E:8BDC:4A44:C2EA]] ([[User talk:2601:342:C002:27B0:3D0E:8BDC:4A44:C2EA|talk]]) 04:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the lack of source about the high academic status...
[[User:Rtcpenguin|Rtcpenguin]]


:Additional information can be added, as long as it comes from reliable sources and is referenced. Change it if you see issues! [[User:Glman|glman]] ([[User talk:Glman|talk]]) 17:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
== Despite its name... ==


== Washington Post story about Clery Act compliance ==
I reverted this a while ago and I'm reverting it again. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Liberty_University&curid=456375&diff=25220454&oldid=24949790 this edit] [[User:Rtcpenguin|Rtcpenguin]] adds the little play on the university's name which I find rather amusing. However, it is nothing more than an attack. We cannot objectively quantify the liberty at Liberty University and there is no place for insulting the university. Ask some of the admins about neutrality and I'm pretty sure that they'd agree with me... it's just a matter of writing in neutral language, and not attacking language. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 21:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/10/03/liberty-university-clery-act/
== Debate ==


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


In preliminary findings, the Education Department says the Christian school underreported crimes and destroyed evidence. Administrators can appeal.
:It's called the National Debate Tournament. [http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/] [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


By Susan Svrluga


October 3, 2023
== A Wikicuriosity ==


... The initial report on the school’s Clery Act compliance — which the university can respond to and dispute before the department makes a final determination — paints a picture of a university that discouraged people from reporting crimes, underreported the claims it received and, meanwhile, marketed its Virginia campus as one of the safest in the country.
The sentence pulled from the article says that an accrediting agency's recognition was revoked. The provided reference says it is still recognized. How many of these have slipped into Wikipedia unnoticed, by one POV pusher or another. [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 05:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
: You could have looked at the links and fixed the error instead of making a POV claim. So it was on probation to lose its license for 18 months. You could have put that in instead of removing it all. Now everything is fixed and sourced anyway. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
::You should mention this to [[User:Arbustoo]]. He has been plastering it all over the place, e.g. [[TRACS]], [[ICR]], etc. {{unsigned|No Jobs}}
::: {{vandal|No_ Jobs}} is a confirmed[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_CheckUser&diff=46681299&oldid=46678110] sock puppet of banned [[User:Jason Gastrich]] who has a POV problem and issues with anyone who posts any controversy in articles relating to his fundamentalist beliefs. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Liberty failed to warn the campus community about gas leaks, bomb threats and people credibly accused of repeated acts of sexual violence — including a senior administrator and an athlete — according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post....


“This is the single most blistering Clery report I have ever read. Ever,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus safety consultant who reviewed a copy of the initial report obtained by The Post. [[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 22:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:More today -
:*{{cite news |last1=French |first1=David |author1-link=David French (political commentator) |title=The Worst Scandal in American Higher Education Isn’t in the Ivy League |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/22/opinion/liberty-university-scandal-education.html |work=The New York Times |date=22 October 2023}}
:This one contains links to documentation elsewhere also.
:[[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


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


LOL. I kinod of understand that this scam, mafia-like institution that has enriched its founders for many decades now is not described as such in the first sentence, but "non-profit"? Seriously??? --[[User:Anvilaquarius|Anvilaquarius]] ([[User talk:Anvilaquarius|talk]]) 13:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
==Debate controversy==
I'm removing the following section of the article related to controversy concerning the debate team. The entire section is sourced to a blog post. Per [[WP:RS]], blogs can not be used as sources. if someone has a valid source for the material please add it back to the article.


== Zinski Case - Don't Autorevert ==
:''The touting of this by Liberty has lead to some controversy, as the overall ranking included results for novice and junior varsity debates. In varsity rankings, Liberty was twentieth. Excessive media recognition of "the best debate team in the nation" has sparked anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.


Added to the Zinski section. What was presented was an LGTP magazine's take on a complaint against a Christian university. Naturally this was completely unreliable and biased. I added the defence as written for CP. Feel free to tweak the phrasing, or discuss here, but please do not revert to an unreliable prejudiced single source. [[WP:EDITWAR]] [[User:人族|人族]] ([[User talk:人族|talk]]) 02:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:''Critics have alleged that the Liberty Debate team accumulates points by sending lots of teams to small tournaments while avoiding known debate champions like Michigan State, Berkeley, Dartmouth and Harvard, instead favoring lesser ranked opponents like Kings College, Army and Richmond. [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/01/liberty_university_1_in_debate.php#more]''''
-- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


:We don't [[MOS:DEADNAME|deadname]] people in Wikipedia. And we don't present a subject's courtroom defense as if it's fact in our own voice. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 02:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:You've misunderstood [[WP:RS]]. Blogs are not suitable as secondary sources. As primary sources, as a source of what a particular blogger says, they are perfectly acceptable. I've restored the content. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 01:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


::Wikipedia states not to use unreliable sources. An LGTP magazine's take is about as unreliable as you can get. Jonathan Zinski was hired for the job with LU then sacked when he violated his contractual agreements. To exclusively quote a pro-Zinski piece without the case having gone to trial or been decided is to turn Wikipedia into an advocate, not a source of knowledge. Since Zinki's status is fundamentally material to the case, and it was Jonathan that was fired, what I'll do is 'restore' my CP contribution but append it to the original section. I fundamentally disagree with what it claims, but will leave it to readers to decide how they can reconcile the conflict. I won't budge further on this though. [[User:人族|人族]] ([[User talk:人族|talk]]) 10:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
* I'm sorry, but I believe it is you who misunderstand [[WP:RS]]. The applicable section is the following:


:::Addendum: LU is listed as an evangelical Christian university which likely means transgenderism is not accepted as legitimate. How does [[MOS:DEADNAME|deadname]] get reconciled with that? Assuming Wikipedia doesn't outright reject the legitimacy of that position you've 2 mutually exclusive claims - the original employed by LU and presumably only valid identity in their eyes, or the identity claimed and presented by the Advocate. I'm unclear on whether the law currently considers Zinski Jonathan or Ellenor.
:"''Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.''


:::The ALCU piece and complaint appears to be here: https://www.acluva.org/en/cases/zinski-v-liberty-university but it's slightly different to the Advocate piece and doubtless will be challenged in court. Per the ACLU piece LU hired Ellenor then fired her when it found out she identifies as trans and wanted to change her name with the cause being denying biological and chromosomal sex assigned at birth and conflict with Liberty's Doctrinal Statement. ACLU contend doctrine must comply with federal law, which risks making this a Constitution case. [[User:人族|人族]] ([[User talk:人族|talk]])
:''That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website...


::::[[MOS:DEADNAME]] is very clear. We are to use the "person's most recent expressed self-identification" which is Eleanor. There is no reason to assume The Advocate is an unreliable source. It is not listed as such on perennial sources, and there is no reason to exclude it here. [[User:Glman|glman]] ([[User talk:Glman|talk]]) 13:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:''The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as '''primary sources''' only with '''great caution''' and '''not as a sole source if the subject is controversial''' — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane...


::::: I'd call the magazine's nature ipso facto evidence. No it is not listed as either reliable or unreliable. Most sources aren't.
This article concerns Liberty University. To my knowledge, Liberty does not own the website or run the "Culture Wars" blog. Furthermore, the subject is controversial and this is the only source provided. There is also no evidence provided why this blog or Ed Drayton would be an authority on this subject. "Great caution" is not being shown here, quite the opposite actually. The blog is thus not an acceptable source in this case and the material needs to be removed unless a valid source is provided. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


::::: [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] your change is far more succinct than what I had. Not quite the same, but close enough I guess so thanks? I tweaked it to include the contract issue because it's not theology v law. That should suffice until a court resolution. [[User:人族|人族]] ([[User talk:人族|talk]]) 04:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
: I agree with Monk (an admin.) that you don't understand [[WP:RS]]. (In your top post you wrote incorrectly that "blogs can not be used as sources.") It's fine to stay as a primary source. If you can show that the work is "sloppy" or "uniformed" then it should be removed. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

:**Just like intelligent design and other contentious side-issues, much the debate and controvery on Liberty's debate credentials takes place in the blogosphere; nothing unusual there. That being the case, the cite and the passage of the article are appropriate and accurate. The facts remain Liberty is ranked #1 only if you include novice and junior varsity debates with varsity. In varsity debate Liberty is ranked #20. [http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/00-ndtreport-dec-05.doc] (pg 3) Unlike many universities, Liberty emphasizes all three.[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/magazine/319debate.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=3b9723e4ad4a4b29&ex=1300424400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss] In earning its points standing, Liberty debated second string teams.[http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/00-ndtreport-dec-05.doc] (pg 10) Much of the media echoed Liberty's claim of being "the best debate team in the nation," without noting the distinction between varsity and overall rankings (to their credit the NYT did).[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/eveningnews/main1419302.shtml] [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11078887/site/newsweek/] It did spark anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.[http://www.apdaweb.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1641] And lastly critics like Brayton - himself a former debater - have indeed pointed all this out.[http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/01/liberty_university_1_in_debate.php#more] Thus, the passage is accurate as it stands. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
* Look, I don't really care if Liberty has a great debate team, a terrible debate team, or no debate team. I don't care if the team is a source of controversy or not. I don't care if the article is true or accurate. What I do care about is that the passage is sourced to an unknown blog. If you have other sources that support the assertions that are made in our article than add them to the text. If not, I am going to rewrite the passage to reflect the sourcing to this blog. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry, but Brayton's writings on his own blog is an acceptable source of what Brayton's views are per [[WP:RS]] despite what you may think. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
: No. Violates WP:RS for use as both a primary and secondary source. If your argument was correct, all blog postings would be acceptable sources, since they all presumably reflect their writer's views. That is clearly not permitted under WP:RS. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

:::What would be the best way to put this? Well, let's try the direct approach: JJay, your argument is ill-informed and specious. Both FM and Arbustoo have explained why you are wrong, yet you do not seem interested in listening. One seriously hopes that you'll not be engaging in an edit war or take to being tendentious for tendentiousness' sake.
:::I'm sure that you'll find FM both quite knowledgeable and quite good to work with so long as you weigh his advice carefully, giving it a good deal of creedence, and that you do not adopt a pugnacious tone. Just a few friendly words of advice. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]] 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

:*''http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/about.php

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

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

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

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

:::::So, might you tell us what would qualify as an ''"accepted source"''? (BTW:I'm sure you mean ''"acceptable"'' as Brayton has already been accepted as a source by FM, Arbustoo and Guettarda.[[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]] 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:::As indicated in my first post above, see [[WP:RS]]. Other than that, are you here to discuss my grammar or the debate controversy and potential sources? -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 22:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

::::Jay, "''If blogs "are reliable sources about the views of the bloggers", and their views are valid sources for any article, irrespective of the blogger's qualifications (which of course have not been independently verified or vetted) to speak about a given issue, the section in WP:RS concerning blogs no longer has any meaning and should be removed in its entirety''" isn't an accurate summary. It isn't a matter of picking "any old blog" - Brayton is "vetted" as such, by Seeds, which publishes the blogs. Since he is connected with a very prominent blog (and contentious one), he is bound to attract attention. If he is claiming credentials which he didn't have, that would have been splashed across the Uncommon Descent (given his spat with DaveScott). [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda, you have convinced me that Brayton is a notch above the average blogger and my be supremely qualified to be quoted in this article. I would point out that I have had to fight to have the article acknowledge the use of this source. I have further repeatedly stated my discomfort with citing the entire controversy section to the views of one individual, because that is what this boils down to if we do not cite an outside source for the controversy. Finally, I do not understand why one editor is repeatedly removing the description of Brayton as an activist. That is not my POV, it is how he describes himself in his bio (see above), along with freelance writer and businessman. I think the casual reader has the right to know something about the sources we are using without having to undertake their own investigation. When we cite the ACLU, Moral Majority, Wall Street Journal or The Nation, readers implicitly understand that they operate from a strong viewpoint and can judge accordingly. Brayton is an unknown entity, hence the need for some description and "social commentator", frankly, does not tell us anything. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


===Non-Blog source for debate team controversey===
The mathematician and columnist [[John Allen Paulos]] wrote about this in his ABC News column. It is not a blog, it is a column. So source it to [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1 here] if its still an issue. It contains all the same information (its all in the second half of the story. The relevant material begins in the last couple of paragraphs of the first page and onto the second page.) [[User:Brentt|Brentt]] 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

== Alumni ==

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

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


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

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

== Removal of Equality Ride information ==

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

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

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

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

== This page needs work...clean up ==

This is a very strange page, especially its organization.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

== Removing section ==

Removed: The mischaracterization by the media of Liberty having "one of the nation's great collegiate debate programs"[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/magazine/319debate.html?ex=1300424400&en=3b9723e4ad4a4b29&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss] has sparked anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.[http://www.apdaweb.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1641]

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

B) Forums are not acceptable sources per Wikipedia policy.

--[[User:Aplomado|<font color="maroon">'''''Aplomado'''''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Aplomado|talk]]</sup> 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

::You can't have a discussion, come to a conclusion and put that into the article. No matter how reasoned you think you might be, that's original research. See: [[WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F]], which says an example of original research is: "''It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source''..."
::Also, if it has indeed sparked anger, you should be able to cite it with something more reliable then a league's bulletin board, which is not an acceptable source per Wikipedia policy. See: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet]].
::For the record, FM, it is sad statement on you that I should have to explain simple Wikipedia rules to an administrator. The weak qualifications to become an administrator on this site has unfortunately meant that it is being overrun by administrators who don't have a clue what they're doing. [[User:Aplomado|<font color="maroon">'''''Aplomado'''''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Aplomado|talk]]</sup> 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::I hope you have a better response than that. [[User:Aplomado|<font color="maroon">'''''Aplomado'''''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Aplomado|talk]]</sup> 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

== Newsweek debate article ==

Despite the efforts of our anon friend here to spin this otherwise, {{User|68.192.122.181}}, the Newsweek article of February 2006, [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11078887/site/newsweek/], is one of the sources that prompted the controversy referred to in the debate section (that is along with Liberty's touting of the same line). That's because the article was factually inaccurate and contains mis-characterizations. For example, it claimed that Liberty was "currently ranked No. 1 in the country, above Harvard (14th) and all the other big names..." and "...competitive at all three levels—varsity, JV and novice." Yet as the article correctly points out, the National Debate Tournament records for 2005 and 2006 show that In varsity rankings, Liberty was only ranked # 1 due to it's junior varsity and novice results, results most schools don't consider. In varsity rankings Liberty was ranked 20th in 2005 and 17th in 2006. This article, and Liberty's marketing dept. taking advantage of the confusion this created for all it's worth, are the sources of the controversy the article descibes. The subsequent articles presented in the second paragraph, ABC News of April 2 2006 [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1Who's] and Associated Press of April 8 2006 [http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060408/SCHOOLS/604080409] both cover this controversy and are written in response to it. But User:68.192.122.181 is trying to present it the other way around with the two later articles, the criticism written in April, presented first, and the first article, the source of the criticism written in February, presented afterwards as a rebuttal to the criticism it prompted! This simply will not fly. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

== Liberty Christian Academy ==

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


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

== White/Caner Debate ==

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

October 16 of what year? [[User:YEvb0|yEvb0]] 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the word 'posthumously', because it sounded like they had made comments while they were dead. [[User:YEvb0|yEvb0]] 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

== Dinosaur bone? ==

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

:I agree. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSbDUCCjrE4&mode=related&search= The speech is here]. I'd like to see more info on this bone. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/66.108.148.222|66.108.148.222]] ([[User talk:66.108.148.222|talk]]) 01:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::Yhea I watched the video, but do not know if this was a joke in the video, or if it is true, and then the university itself is a complete academic joke.--[[User:169.232.125.176|169.232.125.176]] 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::: I believe [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/fossil.asp this] might be it. The article is from 1991 in Creation magazine with the hosting website being [[Answers in Genesis]]. [[User:FGT2|FGT2]] 13:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

==Honorary doctorates?==

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

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

Latest revision as of 04:34, 17 October 2024

New section for Liberty University's ties to white supremacy and authoritarianism?

[edit]

Do we need a new section for Liberty University's ties to white supremacy and authoritarianism? For example, it appears that LU was formed under white supremacy, at least from what a recent New Yorker article stated.

According to the Daily Kos, Jerry Falwell Sr. "was a rabid segregationist in the 1950s and 1960s, railing against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and insisting that Jim Crow laws were God’s will."[1]

According to Megan Stack "The university has its roots in the Lynchburg Christian Academy—later renamed Liberty Christian Academy—which opened in 1967, as the movement to compel the integration of public schools was consuming the South." Admittedly, there have been faculty, staff, and students that have pushed back on the white supremacist environment. [2]

LU's school of government is named after Senator Jesse Helms, a staunch segregationist.

In 2020, Pentecostal pastor Christopher A. House resigned after Liberty University president, Jerry Falwell Jr., "announced on Twitter that he had designed a face mask decorated with a photo of someone wearing blackface standing next to another individual wearing a KKK robe."[3]LeeQuan McLaurin, a worker at LU's Office of Equity and Inclusion, and Thomas Starchia, associate director in the Office of Spiritual Development, also resigned. McLaurin said that “I cannot encourage students of color to go to that university the way that it is.” [4]

In terms of its ties to authoritarianism, Liberty is the only school not to rescind the honorary degree it awarded Donald Trump after the January 6, 2021 insurrection. [5]--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Fascist, Theocratic Vision Behind the "Moral Majority," The Heritage Foundation, CNP, etc". www.dailykos.com. Daily Kos. Retrieved 5 June 2022. {{cite web}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help)
  2. ^ Stack, Megan. "Can Liberty University Be Saved". www.newyorker.com. New Yorker. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
  3. ^ House, Chritopher A. "Why I resigned from Liberty University: Because Black Lives Matter". religionnews.com. Religion News Service. Retrieved 11 June 2022.
  4. ^ Graham, Ruth. ""I Suppressed So Much of My Humanity in Being Here"". slate.com. Slate. Retrieved 11 June 2022.
  5. ^ Nietzel, Michael. "Liberty Is Now The Only University To Not Rescind Donald Trump's Honorary Degrees". www.forbes.com. Forbes. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
An article for Liberty Christian Academy exists and confirms that institution was once segregated. The statement that the university "has its roots" in the academy is kind of vague, however. Does anyone know of a source that's more specific on their relationship? Jno.skinner (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. At the very least there must be a criticisms page considering the tremendous controversies the university has been tied too. 2601:282:167F:1300:842F:AA0F:FD8B:D49D (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty University Wikipedia page is biased

[edit]

The Liberty University Wikipedia page a prime example of why no one trusts Wikipedia. Just the History section alone is completely one-sided. What a joke this website is. Lol 2601:342:C002:27B0:3D0E:8BDC:4A44:C2EA (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information can be added, as long as it comes from reliable sources and is referenced. Change it if you see issues! glman (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post story about Clery Act compliance

[edit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/10/03/liberty-university-clery-act/

Liberty University broke safety laws for years, government asserts

In preliminary findings, the Education Department says the Christian school underreported crimes and destroyed evidence. Administrators can appeal.

By Susan Svrluga

October 3, 2023

... The initial report on the school’s Clery Act compliance — which the university can respond to and dispute before the department makes a final determination — paints a picture of a university that discouraged people from reporting crimes, underreported the claims it received and, meanwhile, marketed its Virginia campus as one of the safest in the country.

Liberty failed to warn the campus community about gas leaks, bomb threats and people credibly accused of repeated acts of sexual violence — including a senior administrator and an athlete — according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post....

“This is the single most blistering Clery report I have ever read. Ever,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus safety consultant who reviewed a copy of the initial report obtained by The Post. Nbauman (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More today -
This one contains links to documentation elsewhere also.
Bluerasberry (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"non-profit"?

[edit]

LOL. I kinod of understand that this scam, mafia-like institution that has enriched its founders for many decades now is not described as such in the first sentence, but "non-profit"? Seriously??? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinski Case - Don't Autorevert

[edit]

Added to the Zinski section. What was presented was an LGTP magazine's take on a complaint against a Christian university. Naturally this was completely unreliable and biased. I added the defence as written for CP. Feel free to tweak the phrasing, or discuss here, but please do not revert to an unreliable prejudiced single source. WP:EDITWAR 人族 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't deadname people in Wikipedia. And we don't present a subject's courtroom defense as if it's fact in our own voice. ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states not to use unreliable sources. An LGTP magazine's take is about as unreliable as you can get. Jonathan Zinski was hired for the job with LU then sacked when he violated his contractual agreements. To exclusively quote a pro-Zinski piece without the case having gone to trial or been decided is to turn Wikipedia into an advocate, not a source of knowledge. Since Zinki's status is fundamentally material to the case, and it was Jonathan that was fired, what I'll do is 'restore' my CP contribution but append it to the original section. I fundamentally disagree with what it claims, but will leave it to readers to decide how they can reconcile the conflict. I won't budge further on this though. 人族 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: LU is listed as an evangelical Christian university which likely means transgenderism is not accepted as legitimate. How does deadname get reconciled with that? Assuming Wikipedia doesn't outright reject the legitimacy of that position you've 2 mutually exclusive claims - the original employed by LU and presumably only valid identity in their eyes, or the identity claimed and presented by the Advocate. I'm unclear on whether the law currently considers Zinski Jonathan or Ellenor.
The ALCU piece and complaint appears to be here: https://www.acluva.org/en/cases/zinski-v-liberty-university but it's slightly different to the Advocate piece and doubtless will be challenged in court. Per the ACLU piece LU hired Ellenor then fired her when it found out she identifies as trans and wanted to change her name with the cause being denying biological and chromosomal sex assigned at birth and conflict with Liberty's Doctrinal Statement. ACLU contend doctrine must comply with federal law, which risks making this a Constitution case. 人族 (talk)
MOS:DEADNAME is very clear. We are to use the "person's most recent expressed self-identification" which is Eleanor. There is no reason to assume The Advocate is an unreliable source. It is not listed as such on perennial sources, and there is no reason to exclude it here. glman (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call the magazine's nature ipso facto evidence. No it is not listed as either reliable or unreliable. Most sources aren't.
ElKevbo your change is far more succinct than what I had. Not quite the same, but close enough I guess so thanks? I tweaked it to include the contract issue because it's not theology v law. That should suffice until a court resolution. 人族 (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]