Talk:Liberty University/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Liberty Way"

The content, as added, does not make sense to me: "The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex" [1]. Interactions alone with members of the opposite sex are not prohibited by Christian principles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Some context: AlaskanNativeRU and Winkelvi have been edit-warring to change a long-standing version of the lede from "The school's honor code prohibits premarital sex, attendance of dances and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex" to "The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex." These changes add some pointless fluff to the lede (nobody cares what the name of the honor code is, and the lede already makes abundantly clear that the school is Christian). It's also weird to say that something is "based upon Christian principles" in Wiki voice when it's disputed that these prohibitions are Christian. The edits also removed the fact that the school prohibits attendance of dances (something that the sources deemed notable enough to mention when covering the honor code). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better explained in the body of the article. I agree that it is a bit too extensive and should be kept shorter. Maybe something like "The "Liberty Way" is the school's honor code that is based upon Christian principals. The code notably prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex". Again there's no reason the second sentence needs to be there, it might be better severed with a statement that students are required to follow the code or face consequences. Moving specific rules of the code to the body section.

By the way Snooganssnoogans, you have been warned multiple times by multiple different editors for edit-warring on this article (and others) in the past month. Knock it off, how many more warnings need to be given? AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

1 - No, Snooganssnoogans, we haven't been edit warring to change the long-standing version. Got diffs to prove your accusation? Good luck finding them. Here is you, however, demonstrating edit warring behavior over the content [2], [3] and then refusing to start a discussion on the content at this talk page. 2 - The Liberty Way honor code of conduct does not prohibit dancing - the source attached to that content states students are prohibited from attending dances (as was explained in the edit summary of the edits you were edit warring over, and you ignored, and then removed that same information with your second revert). 3 - It's not your place to decide readers do not want to know what the name of the honor code is.

I see nothing wrong with the content as it is post-AlaskanNative's reversion of your reversion save for one thing: it shouldn't be said in Wiki-voice that the honor code is derived from Christian principles. "Christian principles" are what's found in the Bible and there's nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of which says there should be an honor code for Christian universities, that no-premarital sex is a Christian principle, nor does it mention private interactions with members of the opposite sex. It's really more likely the honor code is derived from Southern Baptist teaching and doctrine (which does espouse those principles) , although I don't know how we would go about saying that if there's no good source to support it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...why not just cite their rules? I also stumbled across this article. In 2015 they made revisions. j/s ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Text ("Liberty Way")

Thanks for the background. I still find Option 2 to be preferable to Option 1:

• Options 1: The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex
• Option 2: The school's honor code prohibits premarital sex, attendance of dances and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex.

There's no need to introduce the proper name of a nn code, and it seems that we agree that the prohibitions are not based on Christian principles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Option 3: "The school's honor code, called "The Liberty Way", requires students prohibit themselves from engaging in premarital sex, attending dances, and interacting alone and in private with members of the opposite sex." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2 is far better and reflective of NPOV. "... based upon Christian principals" seems to be WP:OR.- MrX 🖋 01:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

How is that OR, when its mentioned in the RS and in the actual honor code. Did you read the source that was listed with this sentence? "Still, the Liberty Way maintains a few more strict, traditionally Christian regulations:" The word Christian is also by far the most used in the page. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

References

• Option 1 Is there an option 3? I feel this could still be worded much better and appropriately for the lede. Perhaps just "The "Liberty Way" is the school's honor code that is based upon Christian principals." and go into detail about the code in the body section. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Option 3 Complete, better wording, and does not leave the reader wanting more information. I think it's likely true that all private, Christian universities have honor codes for students - no reason why we can't state this one is specific to Liberty U by noting how they refer to it at the school. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Option 4 - None of the above. It's surprising to see everyone arguing about the Liberty Way when the cited source turned up a 404 error. I've substituted an archive version. I also took out the part about "based on Christian principles", because in the words of the document itself, "Liberty’s community guidelines come in various forms. Some are local, state, or federal laws that must be obeyed by all. Some are based on Biblical mandates or principles that lead us to develop virtues characteristic of a Champion for Christ. Others are just preferences that promote deference to one another while living in the community. However, all are important for creating the kind of university community, we seek to provide." Lots of sources for them - no NPOV reason to highlight "Christian principles", esp. in the lead. I didn't bother to resolve whether the guidelines prohibit dancing, or merely prohibit attendance at dances, and so left it as it was. JohnInDC (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • How can we define "Christian principles" in an objective academic sense? It is more specifically a reflection of Baptist fundamentalist principles, considering Jerry Falwell started out as Independent Baptist. If you compare the Liberty Way to Pathways at Pensacola Christian College or the honor codes at Bob Jones University (which is non-denominational but largely affiliated with Independent Baptists), you will find a lot of similarities because that's the flavor of Christianity that Liberty's policies come from (which is honestly the flavor of Christianity that I personally follow, not that my position means much in the grand scheme of things) PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, you can't. Another reason to leave the phrase out entirely. JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Question - is it safe to assume the honor code refers specifically to on-campus behavior? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, not without specific evidence. It's very common that colleges apply codes of conduct to off-campus behaviors and activities, too. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2, or 3. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I am relatively new to Wikipedia and after reading the talk page, I understand the arguments everyone is making, but I was wondering if the lead sentence should be stated: "Liberty University asks its students to abide by its honor code, which prohibits premarital sex, and attending dances."? This seems much more reflective of what is actually reported in the article when it says, "It asks students to adhere to an honor code that forbids pre-marital sex, attending a dance or watching R-rated movies." I understand the lead sentence should be short and concise, but I feel like the integrity of the reported statement is being changed in order to do this. Can you please share your insight on this matter? Thank you Jamie853 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Consolidate wording in lede

I'm looking at the following section from the lede:

Studies at the university have a conservative Christian orientation, with three required Bible-studies classes in the first year for undergraduate students.[13] The university's honor code, called the "Liberty Way", prohibits premarital sex and private interactions between members of the opposite sex.[14][15] Described as a "bastion of the Christian right" in American politics, the university plays a prominent role in Republican politics.[16] Liberty promotes the Christian right viewpoint[17] on matters such as gender roles and abortion.[18] The university teaches creationism alongside the science of evolutionary biology.[8][19]

It really seems a bit much to mention conservatism/republicans/right-wing this many times in a lede paragraph about a non-profit university- which are officially non-political. Liberty although heavily leans conservative and has many conservative speakers, also has liberals and non-political folk on campus , ex) Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders comes to mind in the past few years. I have removed the sentence from the lede "Liberty promotes the Christian right viewpoint[17] on matters such as gender roles and abortion". As it really is just another regurgitation of what is already written. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Throwing in random rankings (without context)

A recent edit added a bunch of rankings for LU programs, but this edit failed to provide the Y in "ranked X out of Y". For example, the edit gave the readers the false impression that LU provided one of the best online programs for veterans (it was ranked #63), however that's 63 out of 64, which means that LU pretty much has the worst online program for veterans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Technically it is tied at 63. So it is both the worst and second worst. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You do realize not all programs get ranked right? Why don't you take the issue up with US News and World Report that classifies it as the 63 (or whatever) best. Go through any college wiki article and you'll finding countless rankings from US news programs, this is not unique and it's a strange stance to take to not allow it. At this point YOU are doing OR, because I'm not seeing any sources take your stance or wording AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an example, but I tend to agree that a simple ranking of 63 without context is not useful and may be misleading.Naraht (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)