Talk:Liberty University/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC on LU's relationship with Trump

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is in favour of including the material. Arguments in opposition center around it being WP:UNDUE for an article on the university. This however has been countered by the support arguments that point out there are widespread reliable sources that directly link the university and its political activity. Leaving aside the numerical superiority of the support !votes, when making an argument for inclusion/exclusion, being able to provide reliable sources to support your policy-based argument adds increased weight to the argument presented. In terms of WP:UNDUE - Widespread reliable sources will often satisfy the criteria that it not be a minority or fringe viewpoint that requires exclusion. There is some consensus that the section should be reworded, with support for K.e.coffman's rewording/trimming, I have not done this myself, but I have removed the undue template as their is clear consensus this is not undue for this article. Should any editor wish to trim the section, K.e.cofman's suggestion should be the maximum without further discussion to gain consensus on changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

---

This text is currently under dispute, with some editors arguing that it does not belong on Liberty University's Wikipedia page or that it should be trimmed (the formatting for the following three sources in the first sentence got screwed up[1][2][3]):

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 Liberty University rescinded a speaking invitation of Jonathan Merritt, an alumnus of the school, after he criticized Liberty University, and expelled Christian author Jonathan Martin from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

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

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

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

• WaPo on LU alumni reaction to a pro-Trump film by LU: "More than 1,900 people, some who identify themselves as students or graduates of the Lynchburg, Va., school — one of the largest Christian universities in the world — have signed a petition demanding the cancellation of the project."[4]
• Vox: "Over the past few years, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s vocal support for Trump has often put him at odds with faculty and the university’s students. Last year, an anti-Trump pastor was booted off campus after coming to pray with students, while earlier this year, a progressive Christian protest at Lynchburg vocally denounced Falwell’s pro-Trump and GOP-specific policies."[5]
• NY Times article on LU's response to a liberal evangelical group in Lynchburg: "in addition to banning the Red Letter Christians from campus, [Falwell] forbade the Liberty University student newspaper from covering the revival."[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to substantiate what John is saying, this is how RS describe the university and its role in politics: a "stage of choice in Republican presidential politics"[7], a "pilgrimage site for GOP candidates"[8] and a "bastion of the Christian right".[9] The notion that this Wikipedia should be prohibited from covering LU's role in politics is absurd, as it's an intrinsic part of the school's identity and notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to add some reality and perspective, those descriptions are politically biased, intended to persuade readers that Liberty U is baaaaad and comparable to Westboro Baptist Church. It's not as if the Washington Post isn't known for that kind of anti-Conservative/anti-GOP spin.[10] If any editor can't recognize the forest for the trees, I have to wonder if WP:COMPETENCY isn't an issue as far as being unable to separate the wheat from the chaff. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it clearly is undue and frankly your opinion on this subject does not change my position. It's ironic in any case, the number of issues concerning university articles that have been decided using the logic of consistency and citing WP:UNIGUIDE. I understand you disregard this but that doesn't change the manner in which the wikiproject has debated university features in the past. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(1) what other Wikipedia articles do is irrelevant, (2) I think you may be underestimating LU's ties to politics. LU is deeply tied into conservative politics in the United States, and has been described as a "stage of choice in Republican presidential politics"[11], a "pilgrimage site for GOP candidates"[12] and a "bastion of the Christian right".[13] What LU does in the political sphere and the politics on its campus is therefore an important component of the university. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If this subject is notable by all means make a separate article and then link to it. Otherwise it's moot for you to suggest a current controversy is not undue given the fact that the institution has a 47 year history. We could consider incorporating every controversy in a history section in the article just to provide balance, right.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. You want to create a fork? Why? And of course, if there's RS coverage of other notable events in the university's history, we should add those. Or are we supposed to create forks for all new additions? I was unaware that this was Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I struck - apologies - not sure why I thought it was local. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Blaming Trump for the decisions of university administration and protests by a small group of detractors is just plain nonsense." What on Earth are you talking about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Blaming Trump for the decisions of university administration and protests by a small group of detractors is just plain nonsense." It's plain nonsense and exactly what WP:SYNTH is made of, Atsme. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing whatsoever that could be construed as "blaming Trump" for anything. Wtf? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is why I'm inclined to use examples of how past presidents treated student protests. It helps demonstrate why this material is not encyclopedic. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

??? You're incomprehensible. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It might help if you read the article I linked - it speaks for me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I did read it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see WP:APPNOTE. It appears that the notification used the Template:Please see, which is neutral and civil, and recommended by the section of the guideline. Therefore this appears to me to be WP:WOLF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The content is extremely well-sourced, covers a number of notable events (student protests, senior staff resigning, speakers being disinvited) and covers events that are of obvious importance to a university that plays a prominent role in Republican politics. I think many of the 'oppose' votes above which are puzzled of politics-related content for a university do not realize that this school has been described by RS as a "stage of choice in Republican presidential politics"[14], a "pilgrimage site for GOP candidates"[15] and a "bastion of the Christian right".[16] Politics is intrinsic to Liberty University's identity and notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Trim a lot and remove Clickbait sources. Can't belive so many think Headline Newa spam is reliable journalism. Do they not teach this in school anymore. ..... journalism versus reporting/Yellow journalism..... --Moxy (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Some context here: This editor has been posting weird rambling nonsense about "news sources" on my talk page in the last two weeks.[17] In weird typo-filled messages sent to me, the editor has been linking to bizarre charts that he claims demonstrate reliable sources (these charts suggested that Breitbart News and Glenn Beck's The Blaze should be considered reliable) and moaning about how youngsters don't understand what true journalism is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

^^^ Personal attack and aspersions noted ^^^. Another warning left on the user's talk page. Snooganssnoogans, if you have something to say to the editor you have just inappropriately attacked here, I suggest you do it at their talk page, not on the Liberty University article talk page. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OMG it's really concerning that you seem do not understand context of things over and over again. Show me where I said these things are reliable.... this has been the whole point of the post about news spam....prove it .--Moxy (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In this comment,[18] you linked to a bizarre Business Insider chart of "trusted" sources in an attempt to "teach" me about reliable sources. In your typo-filled rambles, you argued that I should use conservative sources to appeal to conservatives and liberal sources to appeal to liberals. The Business Insider chart showed that Breitbart and the Blaze were trusted among conservatives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If you like I can give more course info on your talk page if I am allowed back there....as you have indicated I should no longer post there. And to be clear those links are to demonstrate to you that BuzzFeed is at the bottom of every list for reliability despite it being published by liberal or conservative sources.--Moxy (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support Alerted to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. If the content has to be trimmed, fine, but the association is reliably sourced and is not UNDUE in any way shape or form. Trump’s multiple appearances on campus, including during campus chapel sessions have been noted not only media but by Trump and Falwell. It’s also an irritant (unsourced of course) to the rest of Christianity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support mentioning Trump - There are more than enough sources to warrant mentioning it in the article (based on WP:N), but be careful about WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTNEWS. I would recommend trimming it though; it probably shouldn't even have it's own section; we could probably merge the Donald Trump section into the Influence on American politics section and cover the situation with a sentence or two. (COI notice: I am an LUO student (who really needs to back away from Wikipedia and get back to studying)). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I could see some mention of this if written in a way at least resembling NPOV, but the text as written is beyond repair at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to take a stab at rewriting it? The sources are all there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support There’s no question that the information is notable and well attested but it should be trimmed to give it proper weight in the article. —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete section - remove the whole Politics section as OFFTOPIC and UNDUE bits of recentism. Its not about the University -- structure or operations or legal affairs etcetera -- and it's not a significant percentage of Liberty U coverage. It's also just inviting a lot of trouble and partisan postings. Markbassett (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: This section, compared to the rest of the article, is HUGE. When reading the article it sticks out like a sore thumb. The sheer size--3 paras--runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. In 10 years will this "episode" be encyclopedic? No. The section fails WP:10YEARS. The 2015 concealed handguns remarks section is also WP:UNDUE and it certainly doesn't rate having its own section. Really, the Politics should not have any subsections. – Lionel^(talk) 04:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly WP:DUE. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The level of coverage from a wide range of reliable sources shows that it's WP:DUE. A large amount of the coverage that Liberty University has received has been about its politics; if anything, the issue is that other, earlier parts of the politics section ought to be expanded (I know for a fact that there is a lot more worth covering from the Bush administration, for instance.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, with a partial rewrite. I have read all the oppose !votes and they don't seem to hold water. The proposed content is clearly centered around LU's goings-on and as documented these events have received plenty of media coverage, so they're both on-topic and noteworthy. (I'm having trouble understanding how any editor here could argue in good faith that the listed sources aren't about LU.) What I do have an issue with is the sentence "Some students protested again when President Trump equated white supremacists with counter-protesters at a white supremacist march in Charlotesville, Virginia." That's a rather gross mischaracterization of the cited source, which says Trump "equivocated about neo-Nazi groups following the violence in Charlottesville," and taints the remainder of the paragraph accordingly. It should be changed to reflect the source. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The Dr.'s (textual) treatment plan seems an avenue toward resolution. Activist (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support While Liberty University is an academic institution and the article should focus on that, it is nonetheless involved in politics, and as such the article itself needs to reference this. Not including this will not provide the complete story we have about it. It should be done in a way that is objective and with high quality sources cited, as suggested in this call for feedback I received. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

*Support - The material is appropriate and the quality of sources is excellent. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC) oops, voted twice Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I don't have much to add here. I agree it's not WP:UNDUE and with the posts from Aquillion, Dr. Fleischman, and Fulbert to name a few. @Gouncbeatduke:, you've supported twice, you only get one. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This has received substantial coverage, so it's not an issue with sources or notability. At another college, I might be more open to claims that it is WP:UNDUE, but much of Liberty's notability from independent coverage is about its political connections. Furthermore, this is really a debate about Liberty's identity and values, and is framed as such, which makes it very much on-topic. Daask (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Definitely violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Also remember, verifiability does not mean it is warranted for this article. Not everything involving this university will be remembered or remain notable years from now, or even months from now. Greggens (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must be older than you. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"instead of telling those who disagree with you to leave the project" I never told anyone to leave Wikipedia. I never mentioned anything about those who disagree with me. For whatever reason, you have read into my comments something that isn't there and certainly wasn't intended. I very plainly gave an alternative ("If writing content for what's being covered in the news is your thing and/or passion, maybe WikiNews is where you belong") for anyone that might want to feed their need to write about news events as they happen or did happen. Wikipedia still isn't meant to be a news source, no matter how you slice it, yet - on a daily, sometimes moment to moment basis - we see editors trying to turn an encyclopedia into something that spans from the National Enquirer to the Washington Post. My personal viewpoint is this is what we get now because the younger generation knows nothing of actual encyclopedias (as those of us who are much, much older do), rather, they know about sensationalistic news that uses WP:SYNTH to lead a reader by the hand down the garden path to an editorialized conclusion. They haven't learned to separate facts from attention-grabbing in-the-moment "journalism" only because their exposure hasn't been to actual journalism (ala Woodward and Bernstein) and the result is coming here to write about it all, whilst not really knowing how to write encyclopedic prose and just stick to the facts. Truth is, encyclopedias are boring by nature (what Wikipedia is supposed to be) because they are intended to contain the facts rather than biased, titillating pieces of writing that treats the emotions rather than the mind (what Wikipedia has become). Ask yourself why Wikipedia is still not considered a reliable source (aside from the aspect that anyone can edit it 24/7 and it changes so frequently) and it likely never will be. Agendas+POV+breaking news = #anythingbutatrueencyclopedia. We can, and should, do better. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey...careful about the "much, much older" designation. I'm simply not young enough to know everything. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hasn't Atsme been topic-banned from US politics? Should her vote and subsequent comments be struck? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

She wasn't banned at the time so that wouldn't be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. I've sometimes seen comments struck when editors have been banned. Is that only for sockpuppets? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's for socks, not editors who !vote before being topic banned. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Trump prophecies" film

This deserves more attention. It's controversial among Evangelicals, even LU students.[19][20] And then there's this[21] which is likely to cause even more controversy about the film. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really, in fact it is such a non-issue that I don't know why its being mentioned at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.191.66 (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverting to preferred version instead of discussion

"There you go again", SS, reverting (diff here) instead of doing the right thing, the collegial thing, the productive thing, and discussing on the article talk page. Such behavior creates bad juju, bad relations, a negative editing environment, a hostile working environment, and disruption. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If reverting should be avoided, then why did you revert Snoogansnoogans in reinstating the OR? Are you saying that an edit that inserts the OR and personal opinion "by liberal news media" is one that should be kept until further discussion? Really? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point re: all the reverting. That's okay. You have to actually experience or be committing the act in order to truly understand what I'm talking about so you get the point. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Snoogans can be a little quick to revert sometimes but this one is okay by me. JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience"

This content seems inappropriate and POV to me as well as a form of commentary: "Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism, the belief that the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. Creationism, a pseudoscience, is taught as a science alongside evolution in biology and earth science classes." Just as content should not be saying in Wiki-voice that certain Christian beliefs (or Muslim beliefs or Jewish beliefs) are false, content should also not say in Wiki-voice that Creationism is a pseudoscience. I see this as a huge violation of NPOV and support a removal of the content, "a pseudoscience". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Settled here[22]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look "settled" to me. And I see nothing that indicates the article can proclaim in Wiki-voice that creationism is pseudoscience and violating NPOV is acceptable. Time for an RfC, I guess. Unless an agreement can be made here that the tone and Wiki-voice needs to be fixed so as not to violate NPOV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV? It seems to me that "pseudoscience" neutrally presents the mainstream scholarly point of view. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Content containing "pseudoscience" isn't really the issue. HOW it is presented, in Wiki-voice, is the issue. And that's where there's a vio of NPOV - how it's presented as a proclamation rather than qualifying it as coming from others. Or, we could just leave the word pseudoscience out altogether. Because, really... is this the article to state it's a pseudoscience or should that be left for the article on Creationism? Plus, it's not as if the school is only teaching creationism in their science classes, evolution is also taught. We can, and should, do better. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you and a few other editors disagree but there is a consensus that it's proper and necessary to label creationism taught as science as pseudoscience. This consensus is not unanimous but it's very solid so you'd need to do quite a bit to change it e.g., convince many editors otherwise, raise a significant flag such as WP:BLP. ElKevbo (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, teaching that the earth was created less than 10,00 years ago would definitely fall under pseudoscience.- MrX 🖋 17:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Not the point. We can likely all agree it's a pseudoscience. The issue is how it's presented in the article, in Wiki-voice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should presented in Wikipedia's voice because it is a widely-accepted fact. The policy is covered here: WP:PSCI. - MrX 🖋 18:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the policy again. Categorizing it as such is not the same as making a Wikipedia proclamation. The topic of this discussion is about the tone, the wording, and NPOV, nothing more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors but I understand your assertions and I disagree. I think the majority of editors who have considered this topic disagree. ElKevbo (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." It seem pretty simple to me. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Meh, I'm not as much concerned about the wording as the fact that there is a section heading ("Creationism") with two sentences in it. If it is to remain in the article, can we possibly remove the sub-heading and place the text nearer the larger "Academics" heading? Perhaps after the sentence, "Liberty is classified as..." Killiondude (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with that. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am concerned about the wording. And now that you bring up the Creationism section, I'm concerned about that as well - I'm more concerned, by putting both of these things together, that the POV and highlighting of Creationism is a poisoning of the reader well against the article subject. That's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The POV that creationism is a pseudoscience isn't much of a POV. If you want to argue that mentioning the fact that they teach this as a science in a university is "poisoning the well"--well. You can say that if you like, but then forgive me if I won't accept any statements from you on what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, you've gotten unnecessarily rude and attackish lately, Drmies. What's the deal? We have a difference of opinion. Big freaking deal. Just accept that we see it differently then adopt a live and let live attitude. No need to say what you did above re: my interpretation of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Sheesh. Like I said above, my concern is how Wikipedia is saying what it's saying and in its voice, not that creationism is considered a pseudoscience. Surely there's a neutral way to state that Liberty teaches creationism as well as evolution without making it sound like Wikipedia is being judgmental, right? Then that's what needs to happen, not keep it as is it, leading the reader by the hand to a conclusion (i.e., "you, the reader, need to believe creationism is pseudoscience, too!"). It's a religious-based school, they're going to teach religious-based stuff. That's why students go there. The students don't think it's pseudoscience, the faculty doesn't believe it's pseudoscience, there are likely a whole lot of Christians in the world who don't think it's pseudoscience. Why piss them all off by taking a stand on it in the article? And, regardless of your belief that I don't know what an encyclopedia is, I do know it's supposed to be filled with facts, not judgmental opinion and point of view. As the statement is currently written, that's exactly what this encyclopedia article contains. We can - and should - do better. What do you care about more? Building an encyclopedia that contains commentary you agree with or factual statements with a neutral tone? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out that a pseudoscience is a pseudoscience isn't much of a commentary. Winkelvi, polite people don't call other people rude to their face. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Polite people don't tell a well-educated person they've never met that they don't know what an encyclopedia is. Seems to me if you can't take someone calling your behavior out as rude, and you're going to fall back on what's polite and what's not, you shouldn't treat them rudely to begin with. There was nothing polite about your comment. Nothing at all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

But saying "my goodness" is sweet, and I accept. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You neurotypicals are so confusing (and seemingly confused) at times... -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't blame NTs - I'm Aspie, and your arguments seem incredibly confusing and confused, as well as taking a non-neutral POV regarding this entry. 124.171.101.85 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you guys to hug it out. PackMecEng (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• My question on this would be what do the references tied to this statement say? Everybody is going to have their biases, but unless the reference specifically says that Liberty University teaches "pseudoscience" (not just creationism), saying that LU teaches pseudoscience breaks WP:OR in my opinion. Furthermore, I'd want such a claim to be based on a solid source, not a source known to have an atheistic bias, for the same reason we shouldn't back criticism of Obama with a right wing source. This is why I think it'd be better to leave it with a wikilink to creationism and if the reader doesn't know what creationism is he or she can follow the link. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• I just looked at the source, and it does not say anything about creationism being "pseudoscience." It does say "Creationism as a course of scientific study is shunned at many universities," but that's not the same. The label needs to come off per WP:OR. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added a source. We don't need a religious source (responding to your argument that the source must not be an atheist), we need a scientific source. The criticism of Obama thing is a false analogy. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's still a violation of WP:OR in my opinion because the new source says creationism is pseudoscience, but doesn't say Liberty University's teachings is pseudoscience. This is why I think providing the wiki-link is the best solution. There's no need to lose sleep at night wondering whether someone knows whether or not creationism is legitimate because we're not likely to convince someone either way anyway, but in contrast, someone who does not subscribe to evolutionist ideas is somewhat likely to dismiss Wikipedia altogether over this. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It also violates WP:COATRACK, since the source has nothing to do with LU or its teaching of creationism. Add the source to the Creationism article, where it belongs, not Liberty University. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Liberty describes itself"

A portion of article text read as follows:

"Liberty University describes itself as a Christian academic community. Its stated mission and aims emphasize both the intellectual and spiritual development of the institution's students."

The reference supporting this statement is Liberty's own 2007 Mission Statement - link. An editor revised this to,

"The description of the school is as a Christian academic community. Its stated mission and aims emphasize both the intellectual and spiritual development of the institution's students".

The edit was accompanied by the edit summary, "non-entities don't describe themselves". I changed it back, for the reason that the original was accurate, and correctly identified the source; and because IMHO the newer language was stilted and vague, and written unnecessarily in the passive voice. The editor has asked me to discuss the matter on the Talk page, which I'm happy to do.

A corporation is not a "non-entity". They are "persons" at law, and powerful entities in day-to-day life. Corporations can own property, sue and be sued, exercise First Amendment rights - they are in many, many facets of the law and in day-to-day practice, indistinguishable from humans (aka "natural persons"). It's incorrect then, to say that the school can't "describe itself". That being said, I've revised the sentence to make it clear that these thoughts are found in the school's Mission Statement rather than being utterances of an abstract "corporation". I hope this is to everyone's liking. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion regarding wikiquitte
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Much better. But how about next time you wait until at least one other editor has commented before you change content that's being challenged? It's better form to do so. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I don't understand that. An editor revised a sentence for a (non-substantive) reason that did not really make sense, and which rendered the sentence needlessly vague and confusing. I changed it back. That's hardly controversial. The editor did not agree with my edit, and politely asked on my Talk page if I could please discuss it at Talk; so I did. You can't mean that we need to take every single revert here to Talk! JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Typically, when a discussion is taking place over a content disagreement, the Wikipedia custom is to wait until other editors have had a chance to respond and discuss before more edits to the content in question take place. And, I'm not sure if you're confused, but I was the editor who politely asked on your talk page to please discuss at this talk page. Which you didn't, as discussion take more than one to occur. And no, I don't mean that we need to take every revert to talk. While there are editors who insist on such ridiculousness frequently and at certain types of articles, I'm not one of them. Is my comment above more clear now, JohnInDC? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I hadn't made the connection when I wrote the comment but figured it out afterwards, and just left it. Separately - if you're unhappy because, after reverting, I tweaked the text to address your stated concerns and thereby improve it, then I can't offer you any satisfaction. I'd do the same thing again, and I don't think it flies in the face of any custom or courtesy, but speeds the process. JohnInDC (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC) It's fine how it is now, but I think you're missing my point. It's not what you changed it to, it's that you bucked the usual form of collegial discussion and the reason for it by making a talk page statement, not waiting for a response or other input, and went ahead and changed the content being challenged. A bypass of the 'D' in WP:BRD. Which, I should point out, is not policy but a really good guideline. And yes, what you did does fly in the face of custom and courtesy. As far as speeding the process, because there is no deadline in Wikipedia, speeding the process is unnecessary. Like I said above, next time, please plan on doing it differently, okay? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Please stop wasting people's time with this crap. You made a change, it was reverted, it's up to you to then discuss it with the editor who reverted you. You did so, they edited the article taking into account your concerns and opened a talkpage discussion for further input. What you are doing now is trying to score points in some sort of passive aggressive 'I must have the last word' annoyance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Are you trying to start a fight with me, OID? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Go read BRD Winkelvi. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Agree with OID, this was actually a very quick and civil application of BRD: A change was made, it was reverted and the involved editors came to a mutually agreeable solution. However, in most cases the question of "who reverted what" is beside the point. It's the end result that matters. –dlthewave ☎ 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC) There was no agreement before the content was changed by the same editor without any discussion occurring. It seems you are confused about the course of events in this case, Dlthewave. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• I support the new wording, "Liberty University's Mission Statement describes the school as..." which makes the source of the statement quite clear. –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer not to include mission statements, as they are basically marketing slogans. I prefer to go with how independent sources describe the subject. If independent sources describe their self-declared mission, with a reality-based perspective on whether it's legitimate or some kind of Orwellian Newspeak, then that's fine, of course. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Self-sourcing

Easily half of this article is based on promotional sourced at Liberty's website, and obvious press releases. Wikipedia sources must be reliable, independent and secondary. Marketing claims from a primary source, whether directly or via press release, are not independent or secondary (and may not be reliable, since Liberty has a vested interest in spinning the facts on some things). I propose to take a scythe to this cruft over the next coupe of days. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. I recently took a scythe to Liberty Counsel for similar reasons.- MrX 🖋 10:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe the recent edits focus way too much politically and the lede now mentions conservative, republicans, and right wing far too many times to be taken seriously as anything other than a liberal propaganda piece. Non-profits officially don't endorse or get involved in politics. Adding that they teach creationism in the intro is also laughable - its one course out of the thousands they offer and this is the focal point about the entire university? The University president also supporting Donald Trump is somehow listed once again, but this time stating that is white nationalism? AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take another look at the lead to see if some material is unnecessarily mentioned multiple times, could be consolidated with other material, or could just be trimmed. But it's critical for us to include the information about the institution's foray into politics because "[n]on-profits officially don't endorse or get involved in politics;" that's what makes the institution's actions so unusual and noteworthy! ElKevbo (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please substantiate that LU only teaches one course on creationism? In a discussion on the WP:FRINGE noticeboard, I pointed out to you that creationism is taught in biology courses, earth science courses and that it's "woven into many other areas of coursework."[23] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Our articles reflect what reliable sources say about the topic per WP:WEIGHT. In this case, reliable sources focus heavily on Liberty's political involvement and often mention their teaching of creationism, so we should follow their lead. Whether Liberty offers thousands of other courses or doesn't "officially" get involved with politics is irrelevant. –dlthewave ☎ 21:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing information about the university and replacing it with news spam and non-stop liberal news publications about politics is not WP:NPOV or WP:Weight. The information about the facilities and campus should not be removed, perhaps we could add more 3rd party sources to enhance these sections but deleting it is wrong. Its one of the largest campuses in the nation (by physical size) and went through an unprecedented expansion and development - how is it possible to remove that much information on this topic. How do you also justify removing information about Miss Virginia being hosted there which just made headlines. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlaskanNativeR: If the expansion is truly "unprecedented", than surely you can find an independent source to support this claim. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC) (fixing ping: AlaskanNativeRU) –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I would consider many of the details about campus buildings to be trivial, and they fail WP:WEIGHT unless reliable secondary sources can be provided: "There is a laundry room and common (or lounge) room on each floor", "the facility towers over the adjacent Football Operations Center and is nearly as tall as the five-story Williams Stadium Tower", "CEO of (Sodexo), along with other top executives of the company, were present for the food court's grand opening." The beauty pageant may have been in the news but it doesn't seem to be the type of WP:LASTING coverage that belongs in a description of a building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlthewave is correct. This isn't meant to look like a page on their website about the campus or facilities. I object to the "news spam" comment, AlaskanNativeRU you need to read WP:AGF. I'm not saying that we can't mention that it went through an unprecedented etc, if we can source that we can add it, just not all the details of what was done. I agree that it's misleading to suggest that creationism is only taught in one course, that's clearly not the case. The claim that non-profits don't get involved in politics is also misleading. See for instance this page on the website of Johnson & Wales University[24] which describes the legal situation, ending with " for organizations that are creative and/or flexible, there are many opportunities to be “Stronger Together” or to “Make America Great Again”!" Pretty overtly political. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Financial Times is hardly a liberal source, unless you live int he right wing media bubble of Breitbart and Fox News. In fact many of the reality-based media sources note the spectacular growth of Liberty U and other fundamentalist institutions in the US. It's a major concern for anyone who values the Constitution and the rights of minorities. I am privately amused at the religious Right's visceral hatred of liberal values, though. One of these days they will open the New Testament and discover that Jesus makes AOC look like Ayn Rand. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You need some serious help with those views, it's crazy you're allowed to go on here and edit with such anger against the "religious right". Damaging any conservative leaning institution or person is your goal. How about you actually read the Bible and the new testament like the students at religious colleges do. Editors like you is why Wikipedia is becoming untrustworthy. BTW Dem President Jimmy Carter just spoke at Liberty's commencement- how is that conservative. Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty is that not progressive enough for you AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not angry with the religious right, I am concerned by their hypocrisy, their lack of respect for the teachings of Jesus, and their attempts to impose Christian Sharia in the US Guy (Help!) 05:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you revisit your latest edit that removed a lot of sourced information from the entire article. Some of the items removed had independent and 3rd party sources that you were looking for but were blatantly removed. Also the campus went through an unprecedented expansion and renovation with over 1 billion dollars, but no there's no information on the topic (its one of the largest campuses in the nation)- don't think I've ever seen a university wiki page that does not go into some depth on the campus and its buildings strange how this was all removed. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: If you'd like to remove some of the self-sourcing from this article, please be more careful to make a distinction between (a) routine, uncontroversial claims (e.g., number of students enrolled) and (b) unusual, contested claims (e.g., self-sourcing promotional information). Please remember that for a lot of basic information - enrollment, number and type of degree programs, campus size, etc. - we're ultimately relying on self-reported information whether we cite the institution directly or a publication that got the information from the institution e.g., US Dept of Education, U.S. News & World Report. (In fact, I think it's better - more intellectually honest and simpler - for us to cite the institution directly for information that originally came from the institution. If it makes a difference for you, you might want to cite the institution's Institutional Research information instead of public relations articles but it would not be unusual for some media-oriented articles or websites to have information that is more current than what IR or a similar office may make available.) ElKevbo (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Our WP:ABOUTSELF policy applies to more than just controversial claims. One of the requirements for using a self-published source is that "The article is not based primarily on such sources". A number of independent sources are used throughout the article, but some sections are based entirely on self-published sources.

Although many secondary sources do get their basic information from the institution itself, we rely on them to fact-check and establish WP:WEIGHT. For example, the "Integrated Resource Learning Center" section consists of intricate details sourced entirely to Liberty, with no outside context to establish the significance of statements like "Freshmen have a mandatory session in the Curriculum Library to assess basic research skills" and "All of these computers have a high-speed internet connection". Are these remarkable characteristics of Liberty University or are they routine, unremarkable characteristics that apply to most colleges? Do sources like US News and World Report even mention that all of the computers are internet-connected?

An outside source would cover both positive and negative information, including comparisons to similar institutions. Is a 150,000-volume eBook collection impressively large or woefully small? Or do independent sources ignore the eBook collection because nobody cares about it? Although this self-sourced information may be factually correct (although it has not been independently fact-checked), it needs to be presented in a neutral, balanced way. –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Those sound like reasonable objections and criticisms of the article. My primary concern about the edit I reverted is that it removed about 40% of the material in the article in one single edit, including some information that doesn't seem to be controversial at all. I strongly recommend that editors make edits in smaller chunks and use closely related edit summaries for each edit so it's easier for other editors to clearly see what was removed and why. ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That's because most of the article was basically self-sourced advertorial. And it was discussed in advance - right here. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please let me know where we discussed why sources like this are not suitable sources for basic, uncontroversial information in the infobox like the university's motto? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Every claim about this place is inherently controversial, so requires reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, not "every claim about this place is inherently controversial." There are certainly many uncontroversial facts that we routinely include in university articles that can or should be uncontroversially sourced to the subject. Much of that information could be probably be found repeated in other sources and if you think it's worth the time to replace the self-published sources with those other sources then you're welcome to do so. But deleting sources from this article only because they're self-published without appropriate consideration for other factors is not helpful.

(I also think that you may be placing too much faith in the willingness or ability of other authors and publishers to fact check some basic information. I don't know of any institution who has had an independent party come to campus to count students or conduct some kind of census to verify self-reported enrollment data. Some of the more sophisticated organizations and researchers do have checks in place to triangulate that kind of information (e.g., compare new self-reported information with historical self-reported information to detect large unexplained changes) but in my experience that is usually done more to guard against data entry mistakes than maliciousness or deception. It would be highly unusual to not take an institution's own word when it comes to reporting information such as the institution's motto!) ElKevbo (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen this kind of requirement being made in the thousand of other universities article? It isn't possible and all the numbers and stats are mostly self-report (by ALL colleges/university in the nation) to other publications/the government. One of the goals of WP:UNI and WP:COLLEGE is to Standardize the structure of all university pages - which the standard is that we use sources from the accredited university itself - at least for some information. You cannot find one university/college page where this is not the case, and many many many are rated as good articles already. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Any content in any Wikipedia article that is not supported by reliable independent secondary sources may be removed. The fact that self-sourcing in other articles has not been challenged yet, does not change this. And in point of fact I have done the same elsewhere before now. In this particular case it is doubly legitimate as Liberty is highly controversial, acting as an incubator for the American far right as much as a university. As discussed above, self-sourced claims should go, and it's long past tome to do that. So now you can go and revert your reinsertion of the self-sourced promotional material, or find reliable independent secondary sources (i.e. not local papers regurgitating press releases). Guy (Help!) 05:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making edits to smaller, more discrete sections of the article this time; it's very helpful for other editors!

Please point to the section of WP:RS that says that "Any content in any Wikipedia article that is not supported by reliable independent secondary sources may be removed" (emphasis added); I can't find it. Additionally, please remember that WP:RS is a content guideline that builds and relies on WP:V which specifically addresses the use of self-published and questionable sources: "[They] may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: (a) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; (b) it does not involve claims about third parties; (c) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; (d) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and (e) the article is not based primarily on such sources." Some of the material you've removed arguable falls afoul of a few of these criteria but some of it (e.g., number of academic programs, athletic conference membership) does not.

So policy does not allow you to remove uncontroversial information only because it's supported by a source published by the subject of the article. Nor does common practice support the idea that we cannot use self-published sources for routine information such as enrollment, number and type of academic programs, and number of faculty and staff: All of the Featured Articles about U.S. colleges and universities rely on institutional sources for that kind of information.

If you have objections to specific sections of this article, please raise them here in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Policy is very clear. Self-sourcing is permissible for uncontroversial facts, but not marketing claims. The abuse of self-sourcing for marketing claims in this article has gone on for far too long. I have problems with all self-sourced marketing claims, not just in this article but especially in this article. Any self-sourced marketing claim can be removed without prior discussion, per WP:RS. The Wikipedia trifecta for sourcing is: reliable, independent, secondary. Liberty's website fails the latter two and may well fail the first as well if talking about anything with an objective scientific background. If you think this content is sufficiently important to include in Wikipedia then find reliable independent secondary sources that cover it (not just regurgitated press releases in the Lynchburg local paper). Otherwise we can safely leave the generic marketing bullshit to their own website. Guy (Help!) 05:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted that an administrator believes it's appropriate to edit war to enforce his own personal interpretation of a policy.

The specific material you are edit warring to remove from this article is: "The school consists of 17 colleges, including a school of medicine and a school of law. It offers 297 bachelors, 319 masters, and 32 doctoral areas of study. Liberty's athletic teams compete in Division I of the NCAA and are collectively known as the Liberty Flames. Their college football team is an NCAA Division I FBS Independent, while their other sports teams compete in either the Atlantic Sun Conference or Big East Conference. Liberty's athletes have won a total of six individual national championships." Are you seriously claiming that the number of degree programs and the institution's athletic conference are "marketing claims" and the institution's own website is unreliable to source them? If so, on what basis are you making those claims? ElKevbo (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I agree with ElKevbo: I don't consider the removal to be appropriate. WP:Featured articles about American universities, such as Duke University and Georgetown University, cite primary sources for information about course offerings and athletics. I'd note that both Duke and Georgetown are affiliated with Christian churches, just like the subject of this article. This may be a WP:DUE issue, but it's not a WP:RS issue. feminist (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Do those universities teach creationism or get mentioned as incubators of right wing fundamentalist thought? Liberty is not like other universities. Its mission is, primarily, indoctrination. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A university has the freedom to teach whatever it wants to teach, as long as it can continue to attract students. And employers have the freedom to decide whether to recognize Liberty degrees as of the same caliber as those from secular universities. But it's not Wikipedia's job to decide. Regardless of a university's political leanings, the number and range of courses a university offers, as well as in which NCAA division their students compete, are basic facts for any major American university. These facts are not promotional in the least.

And I say this as an ex-evangelical atheist who considers Liberty's education to be harmful to whoever attends this university's courses. But the fact remains that Liberty is recognized as a university in the United States, and where the university is not controversial, it should not be treated any differently from any other American university. I don't think any source is disputing the number of colleges Liberty consists of, the number of courses they offer, or where their athletic teams compete. And since there is no dispute regarding these facts, sourcing to the university website should not be controversial. We can't say that everything an organization states is promotional just because some other aspect of the organization has proven to be controversial. We can debate the state of higher education in the United States, whether it's too easily influenced by religion, and whether it requires regulation or a change in culture, but this article is not where this should take place. feminist (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That's missing the point. Most universities don't teach pseudoscience as fact, and wen they do, they get called on it. There is a mountain of evidence that Liberty's foundational purpose is to turn out ideologically pure religious right activists. The fact that there's a parallel stream of legitimate scholarship isn't really important, every time we self-source, we are risking presentation of self-serving bullshit as if it were fact. And in truth we should not be using great swathes of self-sourcing in those other articles either - the PR can safely be left tot heir own websites. We're here to report what reliable independent secondary sources say about them, not to mirror their own website's PR. The fact that Liberty also happens to be a leading source of creationist pseudoscience and constitution-defying theocratic activism only reinforces the need, for this article, to stick to secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The university is regionally accredited so I'm extremely wary of Wikipedia editors substituting their judgment for experts in judging the overall quality or educational soundness of this institution. It has to be judged within the context of its mission, of course, but that's no different than any other college or university. I am personally opposed to much of its mission but that doesn't give me any reason to challenge its self-published information about basic, uncontroversial information.

For what it's worth, JzG, I also disagree with the use of this rationale for some of the other material you deleted (e.g., the professional theatre troupe that was formed on campus a few years ago) a but I'm not challenging those deletions because there are other valid grounds for making them. In particular, the existence of self-published sources does not establish whether a topic is noteworthy enough to include in an encyclopedia article. But there's no dispute that basic information such as the number of degree programs and the institution's athletic conference are important and should be included in articles about colleges and universities. If you feel strongly that there are better sources, you're free to find those sources (e.g., you can pull enrollment and academic data from IPEDS at https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/default.aspx) but that doesn't mean that you can delete the information wholesale just because you personally distrust the cited source. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia 101: any content that is challenged, must be supported by reliable independent secondary sources. Tat applies to all subjects, but especially to controversial ones. This subject is self-evidently controversial, wit significant critical coverage in weighty sources. Anything that is not covered in independent sources is not significant, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would remind you that the existence of self-sourced PR in other articles is a reason to remove it there, not to include it here. We're supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a promotional gazetteer. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy you are way off the mark and have 3 editors disagreeing with you. Can't wait to see you clean up the other 3,000 university articles and apply these same standards. And does it matter if the university churns out "religious right activists", I'm sure other university are churning out "atheist left activists" at a higher rate. Stop with the discrimination. Its a fully accredited (regionally) non-profit university, experts and the acreditors already determined they are legit - we don't need your WP:Original Research in here and your clear discrimination . (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please cite the policy that supports your stance. I'm especially interested in you including the part that explicitly allows you to edit war with multiple editors. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROMO, WP:FRINGE. But hey, why not, you know, just find reliable independent sources instead of self-sourcing this shit? Find reliahble independent sources, you get the content you want and I get the sources I want. Win-Win. Can't find them and you're squarely in WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. What policy allows you to edit war to remove uncontroversial information solely because the supporting source is self-published? WP:RS doesn't; this is clearly addressed in WP:SELFSOURCE. I don't see anything on this topic in WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. WP:PROMO only appears to address this issue when it discusses article topics ("All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources") but not the content of the article. WP:FRINGE doesn't seem applicable to this discussion at all unless you're claiming that the number of degree programs offered at an accredited university is somehow a fringe theory.

And you've done nothing to address why you're allowed to edit war over this. ElKevbo (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy. We cannot allow institutions to use Wikipedia for self-promotion in this way. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In what way is the institution using Wikipedia for self-promotion? Are you accusing one or more editors of working for the university? ElKevbo (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

By publishing promotional material on its website that (presumably well-intentioned) editors are adding to Wikipedia and defending when it is removed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What is promotional about the number of degree programs the institution offers and the athletic conference to which it belongs? ElKevbo (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Arguably nothing, if it was something very routine and did not make up the majority of the article. I gave up counting the self-references in the Academics section when I hit 25. Are you arguing that's ok? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We'd have to look at the material on a case-by-case basis and I'm only focused on the material that was removed from the lede that included the number of academic programs and athletic conference. That is the material that JzG has edit warred with multiple editors to remove only because the information is sourced to the subject. Do I understand correctly that you're okay with that material being readded to the article? ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the article. The article is hopelessly dominated by self-sourced material. Arguing over the lead is futile until the rest of the article is cleaned up. I would not support adding or restoring anything to the lead until that "case-by-case" exercise has been done. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the lead is not a case of inappropriate use of primary sourcing, even if the rest of the article is mostly self-promotion. Removing appropriate content from the lead while keeping the actually promotional content in the body of the article arguably worsens the problem. feminist (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well put, thank you. Which is not to say that much of the material could not be covered neutrally from independent sources, but it would not look like it does now. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion opened at WP:RSN

Other editors may like to know that JzG has opened a discussion about this article and its sources at WP:RSN. ElKevbo (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Liberty University. feminist (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for dropping that note, I lost my session (I am travelling in India with unreliable networking). Guy (Help!) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem! ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude self-sourcing. Not appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see how self-sourcing applies here. I made a similar edit at [25]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Promotional is also an issue, yes, but self-sourced promotional content is the fundamental problem IMO. Guy (Help!) 05:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to source "Liberty's athletic teams compete in Division I of the NCAA and are collectively known as the Liberty Flames." to ESPN. Which part of your revert do you actually want removed? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably true. Which rather invites the question of why people are edit warring to include it based on a self-published source, rather than finding independent sources. See also this revert, which includes 100% self-sourced claims. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Liberty's self-reported student population of 100,000, which was recently removed from this article, is an example of a seemingly noncontroversial statistic that differs significantly from independent sources. US News, the US Department of Education and Forbes all report undergraduate enrollment in the 45,000-48,000 range, and Forbes also gives a "student population" of 75,756. If the 100,000 figure isn't fabricated, then Liberty is clearly using a different counting method than our reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 14:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how much reliable sources cover Liberty's enrollment - it may be difficult to determine the exact values of the residential population, the "commuter" population (who primarily attend classes in-person but may also take online courses), and purely-virtual enrollees who may never have entered the Commonwealth of Virginia. I would guess that Liberty's own printed materials include the last group, and US News/Forbes do not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that is the case. It's clearly a self-serving promotional claim, regardless. Reliable sources are used for more than just factual accuracy; they also ensure that we are presenting a mainstream view that meets WP:WEIGHT. If independent sources don't include commuters, online students, etc then we shouldn't either.

The 100,000 figure appeared in our article for several years. How can we ensure that the other self-sourced claims that we publish are not similarly self-serving? –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that figure of 100000+ appears in multiple reputable sources. If we don't trust the RS to do to proper research OR the university itself like we should than this whole website is moot. The 100k figure is well known it takes a simple google to find countless examples. Enrollment is not something that even needs a source other than the university itself, what kind of source would even attempt to verify that, it's unneeded. See [26] [27] [28] AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

If the 100K figure takes into account commuters, online students, etc., how is that self-promotional? Are they enrolled at Liberty? Are they taking classes taught by Liberty faculty members? Are they pursuing a credential that will have the Liberty University name on it? Then 100K is an accurate figure for the university's enrollment. Have we asked if the enrollment figures at other colleges and universities – cited to their own web sites – include all those student populations? Because I'll bet you they do. And no one seems to have a problem with that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how these numbers are normally added up, but I have yet to find another school whose self-reported enrollment differs significantly from independent sources. –dlthewave ☎ 21:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You really don't have to look that hard, first one I check was Harvard and what do you know the self reported number that we use on their wiki page differs from the "independent" source.

[29] [30] there's probably countless of examples we can find within 5 minutes. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Good find. Looks like Harvard's enrollment needs to be replaced with a secondary source as well. –dlthewave ☎ 23:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So here's an example of why it's controversial. Sources say that Liberty's student body is supermajority white. Liberty says its off-campus student body is much mroe diverse. Well, of course, they have an incentive to say that, and we have no way to validate it. This is why I don't think we should use self-published statistics. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't think the demographics of traditional students studying on campus and mostly non-traditional students studying online will be different? How would an independent source be able to identify the racial or other demographic info of the online populace?? You lack some basic critical thinking skills in this case.

By the way Forbes says the school is NOT a supermajority white as it's only 45%. Such an easy thing to Google but you lack any motivation to actually represent this University accurately, how embarrassing for an Admin. [31]

AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on how likely it is, I simply don't trust Liberty's word on it, for obvious reasons. The Forbes source does not actually contradict my point: it does not break out on-campus and remote students separately, it appears to be simply a chart based on Liberty's own all-student figures. I enjoyed the irony of you accusing me of lack of critical thinking skills and an emotional investment in the topic, especially in the context of what appear to be simple unforced errors on your part. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Haha, if anyone is 'emotionally involved' would it not be you. With your clear bias? I'm all for cleaning up the article and finding independent sources (for the items that require it) but your conduct is beyond refutable. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

My "bias" is in favour of reliable independent secondary sources and against self-sourced promotional content. That is also, coincidentally, Wikipedia's bias. And it's a constant source of conflict with organisations that would prefer us to reflect their self-image rather than the independent assessment of them - from alt-med quacks to shonky companies to universities founded in order to avoid reality's well known liberal bias. Guy (Help!) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe mention both the self-reported figure and figures from secondary sources? feminist (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just use secondary sources. Or, if we think the discrepancy undermines the reliability of the independent sources, neither. Guy (Help!) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)