Talk:Brigham Young University

Vandalism additions

I agree with Frecklefoot that 63.187.40.31 edits are more like vandalism than contributions. However, as good wikipedians we may be obliged to incorporate attitudes about BYU including negative ones. The comment about "waxing the Levi surfboard" was amusing...reminds me of the stories of BYU students who would go to Vegas to get married solely for the purpose of sex and then immediately seek divorce or annulment. B 20:46, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

My wife attended BYU—but I never heard that one! It is funny—I'll have to ask her about that. As far as the revert goes, I did see some valuable information in some of the edits, but they were interspersed with vandalism so I just reverted all the changes rather than pick and fold in the valuable contributions. If someone else wants to do it—just the NPOV stuff please—feel free. —Frecklefoot 20:54, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've got no problem with someone responsibly NPOV'g either, but likening BYU to Nazi Germany? Who has the time or energy to pick and fold that sort of trash? I'm with you on this Frecklefoot: If someone else... The term I used to hear when I was at BYU was "Levi loving". B 03:55, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

Images

Any images add to the articles, so I was glad to see the addition of some images of the campus. But, and this is just an opinion, I think the images would beautify the article more if they were interspersed with the text, such as the images in the Rachel Corrie article are. —Frecklefoot 21:03, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Be my guest. I couldn't figure out how to get it to look right. Lunkwill 00:39, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay. How do you like it? —Frecklefoot 14:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks great! Lunkwill 19:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The BYU logo that was originally in the sidebar has gone missing. I have commented out the HTML tag ofr it to make the page look nicer until it is found again. --Jarsyl 08:23, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

BYU Culture

I've renamed "Marriage and stereotypes" to "BYU Culture" and removed discussion of pejoratives. A laundry list of name-calling doesn't really belong in a neutral article unless it contributes to understanding of the topic in some way. In this case, the disparaging terms were colloquial and not generally known. I do think it is valuable to discuss the "unique" social and cultural atmosphere at BYU, but the focus of that discussion seemed to be a list of names used by detractors -- if someone wants to revise to include a more balanced discussion of BYU culture (including, perhaps, well-known pejoratives in a non-sophomoric way), that would seem appropriate. - 24.128.153.178 July 17, 2004

24.128.153.178, just because they are not known to you does not mean they are "not generally known" and whether it is well known or not isn't really relevant. You can't censor info (even if it is a laundry list of perjoratives by detractors) just because you don't like it so long as it is presented in a NPOV...which it is. A primary contribution of this info is the way that many outsiders as well as some insiders perceive BYU. Balanced? For as large as the article is, this mild criticism hardly outweighs the positive reflection of BYU in the article. Thoughtful people will see the name-calling for what it is. —B|Talk 01:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the terms are not very common, and I've been at and around BYU for almost 10 years. I had never even heard "Breed 'em Young", in fact. Google shows two pages of results (including 2 'pedia results), mostly from anti-mormon sites for '"Breed 'em young" byu"'. I think it's inappropriate to accuse .178 of censorship when he went out of his way to describe why he did it. He even invited you to balance the paragraph out. You also had the opportunity when they were anonymously deleted the first time, after you put them in as the /second paragraph of the article/, and then again when they were deleted by someone else. I tried to make your original commentary more NPOV when I moved it away from the top, but never felt like I fully succeeded at justifying it. I'll try once more to make it NPOV, but I'm annoyed at this point that you've never tried to do so yourself. Lunkwill 03:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lunkwill, READ my comments: "whether it is well known [by certain people] or not isn't really relevant". Just because YOU haven't heard it doesn't mean it isn't common...that merely indicates the breadth of the sort of social circles you associate with. Nor is a google search the arbiter of commonality. Deletion of relevant material is censorship, period...especially when poor reasons are given for deletion. I'm annoyed with you for holding me responsible for edits that you or .178 want. Quitchurbitchin and DO IT YOURSELF if want it edited a certain way! Your last edits, while generally good writing, show that you don't fully understand wikipedia's NPOV policy. For example, as a general rule, direct statements using adjectives more often than not violate NPOV such as: "quite low"; "vitriolic opinions"; and "Ironically". NPOV more than anything is about presentation and actually less about content; it's about not taking a stance. Stating that "some people call BYU, Breed 'em Young U" accords well with NPOV -- IT IS A FACT (no matter how childish, pejorative, uncommon and offensive it is), it is relevant and it doesn't disparage or encourage the name-calling...it doesn't even describe it as "name-calling". —B|Talk 01:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me just respond to this: This doesn't really have as much to do with NPOV at it has to do with relevance. For example, if this were an article about "ants," wouldn't you agree that the relavance of a paragraph about how people in two provinces in Uruguay in the late 1970s liked to refer to ants as "hippie communists bugs" because of how they worked together and "my cute little cuddlebugs" because they liked to pour ants over their heads before going to sleep is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on the topic? The facts may be true. They may be interesting to the four people that did this. They may even be interesting or humorous to you. But it isn't relevant to the general audience. That's what I meant when I said, "name-calling doesn't really belong in a neutral article UNLESS IT CONTRIBUTES TO UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOPIC IN SOME WAY." If you want to make a case for "B-Y-Zoo," "Zoobies," etc., go ahead. Make your case. The paragraph that is currently there makes a very poor case, and you don't seem to be convincing anyone in this forum either. It should be removed or seriously revised. If you don't want to do the revision, that's fine, but don't just cut and paste old versions back in when it keeps getting deleted by other contributors because they see the same thing I do: irrelevant and immaturely stated material. --24.128.153.178

BoNoMoJo, I am generally familiar with both BYU and perspectives about BYU in Utah, having grown up in the northern part of the state before moving to the east coast. I am not trying to censor anything, but I absolutely still argue that most of the pejoratives you list are 1) colloquial (and even in Utah, generally unknown), 2) outmoded -- I haven't heard anyone say "Breed 'em Young" in 15 years, and 3) contribute little to the article, regardless of being critical or positive about BYU. I **do** think that the article needs to expose BYU's 'seedy underbelly' (whatever that might be) and I certainly agree that discussion of social norms like age of marriage and the cult-of-return-missionary should be discussed. I just think that in its present form, the discussion is extremely, well, junior-high. It still needs serious revision. I'll take this on myself when I get a chance. If you want to beat me to it, be my guest. --24.128.153.178

Irrelevant: colloquial and outmoded. Wrong: contributes little. As stated above it reflects a significant if not widely-held opinion about BYU...THAT IS relevant. —B|Talk 01:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BoNoMoJo, how are we going to resolve this? These names do not reflect a "significant if not widely-held opinion about BYU" -- what does that even mean, "significant if not widely-held opinion?" For an opinion to be "significant," doesn't it have to be at least more than very marginally held? This definition at wordnet certainly seems to indicate as much: http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=significant . You might also want to take a look at "insignificant." Look, my argument here is that, yes, there may be some small number of people in the state of Utah who have heard these terms at some point in their lives, but unless that small group of people is "significant" (it isn't), or if their opinions are somehow more significant than those of the rest of the readership of wikipedia (they aren't), or if the intended audience for the article consisted significantly of these people (it doesn't), then they simply don't belong as a "significant" part of the article. And, BTW, I'm betting that most of those people in Utah that have heard these terms heard them while attending the University of Utah; perhaps this paragraph would be more relevant if moved to that article. --24.128.153.178

Just to be sure, I didn't mean that a nickname or opinion was not widely held. None of us contributors could say with fair certainty how widely held these are....and isn't it a bit pedagogic to be offering definitions of "significant" and "insignificant"? Whatever. Don't trouble yourself too much with me 24...I just like to see that certain content gets discussed more thoroughly sometimes...maybe it's the philosopher in me or maybe it's the lawyer in me...I don't know, but for now I've contributed and discuseed as much as I care to on that section. BTW, I first came across the "Breed 'Em Young University" when I was a sophmore at BYU in the early 90s when I read it in a unofficial BYU student rag, the Student Review. I can't think of a time I ever heard it in my three years at the U of U... oh yea, 24., are you in New Jersey? Just curious. —B|Talk 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me contribute my $.02. First off, BoNoMoJo has made significant contributions to many LDS topics here on the 'pedia--he is not a vandal or anti-Mormon. Second, I've never attended BYU, but I've heard all the nicknames and "perjoratives" levied against it. I think they are relevant. They are in the Mormon pop-culture and they're funny. Since they are so popular in the Mormon culture (despite not in American pop-culture), I think they deserve mention in the article. Lastly, I've heard the BY-Zoo and "Zoobies" references before, but the article gives a poor description of why BYU is Zoo-ish: what does marrying young have to do with a zoo? There, I'm done. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:41, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I can't remember the origin of B-Y-Zoo. I did call our local Wal-mart in Irving (when we lived there) "the Zoo"...kids running up and down the aisle, stealing in plain view...just about got ran over by some boy on a bike there. Makes me think about those surreal moments when class would let out at the Y and the sidewalks would fill with people like a heard of cattle...sometimes silent as death only to be occassionaly broken up with laughter because some joker started bleating, "moooo, mooooo!" —B|Talk 03:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think they are amusing too, but another of my mixed motives for seeing this sort of material in there is to show how mean-spirited some of the unflattering presumptions of prejudicial people can be against the Y...really what other university incurs such extreme opinions? I think it reflects more poorly on such persons than is a cut against the Y. —B|Talk 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll put in a couple of pennys here, too. First off, having had some limited interactions with BoNoMoJo in the past and having read many articles that he has authored or edited, I agree that he has made some very important contributions and is one of the most valuable members of the wikipedia community, especially on LDS topics -- but I disagree with the implication that this fact makes his opinion somehow more relevant to this topic than Lunkwill's or .178's (isn't this type of reputation-preference anathema to the wiki concept in general?). Secondly, if I had to vote right now, I'd vote for keeping discussion of nicknames, but reducing the number listed, removing especially those which have slipped out of usage and which are otherwise obscure or confusing (such as those you mention). The language of the paragraph indicates that some of the statements are more the author's perception of perceptions about BYU, rather than perceptions themselves (e.g., what is the basis for "some of the most vitriolic opinions about BYU are held by LDS students at colleges elsewhere in the US?" Is this based in some fact from a survey? Or is it personal perception/opinion?). But I agree with keeping the discussion in with a few examples of common pejorative nicknames -- in my mind, the discussion of the sometimes wierd social atmosphere at BYU is important and relevant, as is discussion of opinions of Utahns and members of the LDS church. Lastly, I think that the discussion in its current form is backwards; it seems to want to discuss the nicknames and includes the reasons for those nicknames only in support of their inclusion in the article. Instead, the paragraph should outline the social oddities at BYU and how BYU is perceived by Utahns, Mormons, and non-Mormons, including nicknames to illustrate those oddities. Hmmm. Perhaps I'll take a shot at this revision. Any objections? — LennyG

None from me. —B|Talk 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go for it, LennyG. One thing, however. I just wanted to point out that BoNoMoJo is a long-time respected contributor to the 'pedia and not just some bored college kid looking to stir up some dirt. Of course everyone's input is welcome and appreciated, but the conversation seemed to start turning BoNoMoJo into some sort of rabble-rouser, which he isn't... that is all. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:21, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

These are widely-used pejoratives. I think some are indispensable. For example, "Zoobies" deserve note because to outsiders it's not entirely obvious that the term refers to BYU students, yet the term is commonly used. (At least at the U!) These pejoratives shouldn't be included merely because BoNoMoJo is an outstanding contributor (which he is), but because they're in use, factual, and in context of broader cultural arguments about BYU. Incidentally, why is the U article crap compared to this? I sense some school pride-expansions coming on. CHL 06:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Famous alumni

I added this new section. I only knew of two so anyone who is more knowledgeable, please add. Mike H 19:12, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

The "What links here" button is a good resource for these. I added a few as well as what they are famous for. I got bored of adding them, though, so you can go back there and add any more you think are worthy. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:35, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Why do they marry so young?

The article in its present state gives a poor explanation of why students get married so young. The Church putting a high emphasis on family and marriage is only a minor reason. I think--at least this was true with me and most friends--most LDS members get married young because they can't have sexual relations outside of marriage. To be blunt: they're horny. This should be stated more eloquently in the article, but I don't have time to do it myself right now. Anyone else want to give it a shot? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:33, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, as true and relevant as it is, I dare you to state in the article that "many BYU students who marry earlier do so because they are horny!" It wouldn't last one day. Not to mention shorter engagements and sometimes a marriage drawn together more because of sexual attraction than long-lasting compatibility. —B|Talk 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there some way it can be worded to not step on other's feelings? Stating that the only reason they get married early is because the Church emphasises families just doesn't give the whole picture. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:29, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you Frecklefoot...I just meant to say that wikipedians wouldn't let stand any phrase of the sort that "unmarried BYU students are horny" even if it is the truth. —B|Talk 16:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a way it could be stated NPOV, but I think backing up the statement that horniness is why they marry young would be harder. Sure, zoobies are plenty horny, but is that really why they get married? Aren't there plenty of people at other schools who also get married for shallow reasons? Are BYU students hornier than people at other schools? How do you even quantify such a thing? If you measured it in terms of sexual /activity/, BYU would rank quite low, since relatively few even go all the way. Also consider that the church deprecates lasciviousness -- zoobies tend to be almost apologetic even admitting the part sexual desire plays in their dating (contrast other schools...), so you'd have to show that they're getting married young because of sex *despite* their stated reasons. I really would be interested to know what the reasons are, and I've often theorized that sexual repression has something to do with it, but I don't think it really explains the whole marriage culture by itself. Lunkwill 16:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The thing is, BYU students (and probably Mormons in general) get married to have sex, as opposed to other people who marry, despite the fact that they are already having sex (in general, not all people go all the way before marriage). Perhaps this is a topic for Mormonism in general and not BYU specifically? I just wanted to mention it in this article because marriage age was already mentioned. So, no, I don't think BYU students are any more hornier than other college-aged students, but they are horny and... um... aren't "getting any" until they marry. So, they marry. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:56, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

I view this as an over-simplification. In the church there are several cultural and familial benefits to getting married–married to an active Mormon in particular. Callings tend to go to married couples, and older singles are often relegated to singles ward meat markets, isolated from "grown up" wards. Some Mormons furthermore have a strong desire to have children independent from sex. Indeed, I can personally attest that some young Mormon women are averse to sex except for the fact it'll be their sole source of offspring.

BYU is famous for being a place where Mormons (especially those from LDS-impoverished areas) go to get married. It's true that sex is a carrot, but there are plenty of others, not to mention parents with sticks wanting their daughter to marry "a nice Mormon boy." I think this is a trait more evident at BYU then elsewhere in Mormondom. CHL 07:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me address your points one by one (I am not trying to start a flame war, just engage in a discussion):

Callings tend to go to married couples

I don't agree with this. I've had dozens of callings over the years and in only one did I serve with my wife. Besides, why is getting a calling such a good thing? I'd love to be able just attend meetings and not have to do other work. ;-)

older singles are often relegated to singles ward meat markets

What is so bad about that? If you're single, you probably want to meet other singles (to get married), so it's preferable to be in a singles ward if you're single. Being in a family ward would be a bummer--there'd be few, if any, dating oppurtunities within one. Singles wards are a great boon to singles, though I probably wouldn't refer to them as "meat markets." I met my wife via a Single's Ward, BTW, so this probably influences my opinion. And, "older singles" (I think the cut-off is 30 or 32) are required to go to family wards and are barred from the singles wards (I guess if you're not married by the time you're 30, you're hopeless :-S).

Some Mormons furthermore have a strong desire to have children independent from sex. Indeed, I can personally attest that some young Mormon women are averse to sex except for the fact it'll be their sole source of offspring.

I guess this is true. Luckily is was not true in me and my wife's case.

I still think a big reason they get married is to engage in the "S" word--not out of a desire to start an eternal family. But I'm not going to hound the issue. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:11, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Article still being somewhat outshined

I thought this article was shaping up well, but if BYU is going to live up to its self-proclaimed reputation—at least self-proclaimed by some—as the Harvard of the West, its article should at least look as good as it supposed rival. Check out Harvard University and Yale University. —B|Talk 18:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the pictures of their campuses are nicer since they focus on just a few buildings instead of the whole campus and they have more alumni. They also have the vital stats of their school in a nice table. But they both a coat of arms, but BYU doesn't have one, so we can't use the same template. Should we just put in BYU's logo in place of a coat of arms? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:58, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Zoobie" Etymology

Commented out from the main article in re "B-Y-Zoo" & "Zoobie."

[can someone research the origins of these terms and how they relate to BYU Culture? Is BYU zoo-like because the students are "animals?" Because they smell? Because of similarity to the reproductive characteristics of zoo animals? Because it is fun to tour campus and throw peanuts at the captives?]

Cool Hand Luke 03:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zoobie was actually a busker in Boulder Colorado 25 years ago that took his name from jazz lyrics (zoobie doobie doo). The Rainbow family picked up the name and spread it across America and evidently the world. To my knowledge, there's only been one actual Zoobie.

One non-BYU Mormon's opinion

I have to say that this is a fairly decent article, but the culture section clearly needed improvement. Like so many things related to the LDS Church, perhaps an objective opinion about BYU's culture is impossible, but I'd like to think that I tried to strike a bit of a balance. (Granted, "objective" and "balanced" are two completely different things, but the latter is an adequate substitute in the case of the impossibility of the former.)

As far as the "they're just horny" comments go, I'd just like to point out that premarital sex is hardly uncommon among even active Latter-Day Saints. LDS girls' round-heeled reputation is well-known (as is their widespread embrace of "technical virginity"), and I have known a number of young men who have engaged in sexual relations twelve hours before leaving for the MTC. Quite frankly, it may well be that the Honor Code--violation of which can result in the negation of all academic credits earned in the student's BYU career, in addition to expulsion--is the only thing forcing a lot of these kids into marriage. A lot of them just go and have sex anyway, especially the RMs who feel that after two years serving The Lord, it's time to serve "The Captain."

--Slightlyslack 05:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to question the statements in your second paragraph. Speaking as a life-long member of the Church, I'd have to say that your observations are in the minority. While the "round-heeled" reputation of LDS girls may be true in certain geographic areas (e.g. secluded regions of Idaho, Utah), I'd have to say Mormon girls (and Mormon males) are generally regarded as being sexually wholesome. While I don't doubt many BYU students break the Honor Code without reporting it, I doubt that most students do since for the most part they've been brought up in LDS homes.

As for jumping out of the sack just before rushing off to the MTC, I have to doubt this as well. I had about 20 companions on my 2-year mission and only one had ever engaged in sex. And this was because he was a convert. He said that he went without sex for a year before his mission, testing himself to see if he could. When he saw that he could, he went on his mission.

Lastly, I'm an RM and never had any inclination to engage in extra-marital sex after my mission. Sure, I wanted to (temptation and all), but I never did. The only reason was I knew it was wrong. Heck, I just got back from 2 years of telling people why it was wrong! Not all RMs remain morally clean, but I'd doubt that most fling their morality aside once they return home. Most have strong testimonies once returning and are less inclined to break their covenants than they were before their missions.

Of course, all of this is conjecture (and observations). Data on this type of activity would be impossible to gather (even if it were possible, their's no way to test the validity of it). I just wanted to convey my observations as a life-long member.

As for my previous "horny" statements, perhaps better wording would have been "bottled." Despite being morally clean, these girls have grown up in cultures where sex is glorified; it's just natural they're eager to try it. :-) Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

You obviously have much more faith in the righteousness of the LDS community than I do. I remember hearing from a General Authority at one stake conference (I'll be damned if I can remember who it was) that as many as 50% of RMs go inactive at some point in their twenties. My mother, who converted while residing in the Calumet Region of northwest Indiana and then moved to Provo to be a "good Mormon" (it has been a continual source of amazement and frustration for me that so many Midwestern Mormons buy into the Happy Valley doctrine that they can't be full-fledged Saints without a Utah mailing address), vividly remembers seeing the missionary who baptized her at a Greek culture festival in Salt Lake; he was visibly intoxicated and had an equally drunken floozy hanging off his arm. Maybe an outlying case, but I've heard dozens of similar tales from Utah expatriates who left the state because of their frustration with the hypocrisy of so much of the LDS community there.

Perhaps I should have prefaced my denigratory comments with the clause, "in heavily LDS areas." The lack of social pressure to be active in most of the country means that, after a few years away from the mothership (let alone a generation or two), only the people who have really firm testimonies of LDS teachings bother to live a Church-standards lifestyle; the rest, as the rolls of any congregation in the Midwest will confirm, simply go inactive. --Slightlyslack 23:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, this isn't really supposed to be a debate forum, BUT since it's under way...

Allow me to quote you for clarity:

You obviously have much more faith in the righteousness of the LDS community than I do.

Well, I am LDS. Shouldn't I have faith in the LDS? :-)

I remember hearing from a General Authority at one stake conference... that as many as 50% of RMs go inactive at some point in their twenties.

Oh, I don't doubt this at all and have witnessed it. Many RMs just lose interest (for whatever reasons) in the Church after returning. I don't know the cause (since it didn't happen to me), but I doubt the mission itself had anything to do with it. I think the missionaries just return home to their old friends who may lead that back into bad habits. From there it's all downhill.

My mother, who converted while residing in the Calumet Region of northwest Indiana and then moved to Provo to be a "good Mormon"

I lived in the Provo area (Pleasant Grove, to be specific) and I don't get this. I didn't feel any more faithful while in Utah than I did elsewhere. In fact, I found the overly-LDS atmosphere a bit bothersome (some native Utahns revel in it). You can be a good Mormon wherever you live, but I guess some people like living in a LDS-saturated area.

I've heard dozens of similar tales from Utah expatriates who left the state because of their frustration with the hypocrisy of so much of the LDS community there.

Well, I moved away from Utah for a job. I think there may be more hypocrisy there (that is, many Mormons, but lots of immorality) because it is so heavily LDS. It goes something like this: when children become teens, they want to stand out. If one is LDS in a non-LDS area, such as California, this is easy. You are LDS and people are watching you. You stand out because you are LDS. Since you know people are watching you, you try to uphold LDS values so you continue to stand out. In places like Utah, however, most people are LDS. A good way to stand out, then, is to fling LDS standards aside and act immorally. I'm not saying this is a good idea, but I think this is what often happens in LDS-saturated areas.

The lack of social pressure to be active in most of the country means that, after a few years away from the mothership (let alone a generation or two), only the people who have really firm testimonies of LDS teachings bother to live a Church-standards lifestyle; the rest, as the rolls of any congregation in the Midwest will confirm, simply go inactive.

Well, I don't really agree with this. I think going inactive is more rampant in heavily-LDS areas than in non-. There are a lot of reasons for people leaving the Church and I don't think "pressure" is a big reason for many people staying active. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is a motivator at all. In my little LDS community, some people went inactive and re-active all the time. If I were to go inactive, I wouldn't care less what my neighbors thought or said--my activity is my own business.

And some people don't go inactive, they just move. This is what happened to my ward back where I grew up. We used to have two wards in our building, but it has dwindled down to one. The members didn't go inactive, they just couldn't afford to live in Silicon Valley and moved elsewhere.

But I've never lived in the Mid-West, perhaps situations are different there. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:28, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

ProvoPulse.com

Why was this link removed? It's relavent--it's about BYU-related subjects. If anything, the other link I added (I didn't add ProvoPulse) should be removed. It's a wiki that is about Provo, but not BYU particularly. ProvoPulse.com is about BYU. I added the Provopedia because it looked like a newer beta version of ProvoPulse.com. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:48, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I checked out Provo Pulse, and it looked to me like your basic blog. If I'm reading an encyclopedia entry about BYU, and I click on the external links to learn more about BYU, and I go to Provo Pulse and get a bunch of blog entries, I am disappointed. That's why I removed it. I suspect the folks behind Provo Pulse themselves added the link, to try to increase traffic to their site. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 22:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

But its a blog about and by BYU students. Don't you think that's relevant? It might be more insightful than the encyclopedia entry as to life at BYU. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:10, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation with IATA-BYU code

I don't think this should be at the top of the "Brigham Young University" page, possibly on the "BYU" redirect page though. Not sure of the exact Wikipedia policy on this one, but it seems only relevant on this page because "BYU" redirects to it.

Ianneub 00:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I took care of this by creating a disambiguation page at BYU. COGDEN June 29, 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Interesting, ahem, quote

Why is the following text in the perceptions section presented as a quote: "bubble of shallowness, focus on appearances, and casualness toward marriage"?

There was no attribution, and it's not exactly NPOV. Just putting it in quotation marks doesn't make it okay, if it's not attributed.

I think it should be removed or whoever knows where it came from should cite their reference. FuzzyOnion 18:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)