Talk:Baylor University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Anabaptist work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baylor University article.
Article policies
To-do list for Baylor University: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Academic profile (Expand)
  • Baylor 2012 (Expand)
  • Campus (Create & Pictures) - should mention the construction of Brooks village, and Brooks Flats
  • Student life (Create)
  • Athletics: Expand football section (first game was played in 1904, and numerous all-americans have played at Baylor since then, including Mike Singletary) and create section for tennis program. Separate men's and women's basketball.
  • Bush Library
  • Homecoming - one of largest in nation (oldest continous running homcoming parade)
  • little tidbits - greek life, bear claw and sic 'em bears expression
  • mention of the ban on dancing
  • Tidbit that Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas
  • Update Alumni-Priscilla Owen, Chet Edwards
  • Sul Ross graduated from University of North Alabama

Note: Priscilla Owen already listed. Chet Edwards graduated from Texas A&M. Krazos 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Note: Sul Ross added back in with a clarifying note. Since he attended and completed a semester, he qualifies as an alumnus but not a graduate, and the section in question is labeled "Alumni" not "Graduates."


01.17.06 Added seal in confority w/ other university pages Tyron 22:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Note: This needs to be removed, as Wikipedia has not licensed the protected mark from the university. Baylor's practice is to not use the university seal outside of the President's Office, Board of Regents, and on buildings and campus physical facilities. More here: http://www.baylor.edu/graphics/ . --

01.10.06 revery to correct error.

--

I fixed the most glaring errors in the men's basketball section, but this page needs work all around -- consolidating information into appropriate sections, etc.

Contents

[edit] why was the homosexuality criticism removed?

Someone reverted my post but gave no explanation why? It's a very common criticism. Until I receive a reason, it will be re-entered.

I did not remove your post but I think that it is out of all proportion to the article. If homosexual activist groups have complaint about Baylor then it is a Controversy or Criticism and does not rise to the level of its own heading. Also, it should not take up as much space in the article as it does. Since it is only a minor controversy compared to Baylor’s ongoing struggles with its parent denomination it should take up less space than this.

[edit] Contradiction?

The first paragraph says that it founded as an all-male institution, while the second says this happened after six year!141.161.73.48 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dancing at Baylor?

No mention of the ban on dancing, for which Baylor was famous until Dr. Sloan ended it in the mid-1990s.

  • Brief mention added in Trivia section. Krazos 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SBC Category

Baylor is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention; instead, it has chosen in recent years to align itself solely with the more moderate Baptist General Convention of Texas. Consequently, I am removing Baylor from the SBC category, and adding it to Christian schools and universities instead.

[edit] Secret Societies

I have placed the verification logo at the top because this page links to and has information on the group Theophilus Athenaeum which does not have proper citation. Wikipedia has clear guidelines for citation which must be followed. Feel free to discuss this further here. IllinoisBrown 03:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)IllinoisBrown

  • I took it off and also removed the information listing Theophilus Athenaeum. Until they can provide some verifiable sources that they are nothing more than a group of people who have been around since the early 2000's, publishing about one paper a year, then they are not quite ready to be listed on the main Baylor page. It appears they may be inventing a history to elevate their status. 161.40.22.50 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Is it possible to change the colour of the infobox text to white instead of black? As it is, it's essentially unreadable. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Or the Template:Infobox_University should be used to keep is consistent with other universities.--Nmajdan 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend updating the infobox to the standard format. Practically every other university has changed to the template. -Texink 04:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added the template here so you can get a feel of what it looks like and you can just copy the code over when its approved. I also left all the fields in there so you can see what other information can be filled out.--Nmajdan 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There have not been any objections to switching to the standard university infobox, so I made the change today.--NMajdan•talk 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Since there has been no objection - I have removed the infobox from this Talk page. The reason for the removal is that the template contains a copyrighted image of Baylor's seal. This is used acceptably under fair use on the article page, but should not be kept on a Talk page. Johntex\talk 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy and Criticisms

Removing sections of articles without any explanation continually is vandalism. If someone feels that the crticism section is wrong, then discuss it here and try to edit it constructively. Cjosefy 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The comments from Tom DeLay are taken out of context here, and contain no informative value here. Furthermore, in response to further questioning about his comments that are stated here he admitted that they were taken out of context, and that he is a 'longtime supporter of Baylor and Texas A&M'. However, in the context of this page these comments show nothing more than DeLay's frustration with his negative, personal experiences at Baylor. How credible can DeLay be, speaking against the University (in this context) while he was expelled for drinking (as noted in the article) and for spray-painting buildings green at Texas A&M (Baylor's rival university), and then getting caught. Of course DeLay would have biased feelings toward both universities after being caught and expelled because of his behavior. These comments only perpetuate a personal agenda, and therefore should be removed from this page. Posting them on DeLay's page would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMDaniels (talk • contribs)
The DeLay comments caused quite a stir when they came up, so I think they deserve mention. DeLay may very well be biased, but there needs to be citations for this. If he claims it was out of context, then we need a citation. If he changed his stance later, then we need a citation. As it stands, the quote is correct, is not out of context, and it cited. Cjosefy 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a "research" uni!

heaven forbid you omit "research." all notion of prestige would then be lost!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.180 (talk • contribs)

But we aren't a research university, no matter how much the PR office tries to spin it. We're barely under that classification in what, one or two publications? Even then, that's not Baylor's main focus and it never will be. Having that we're a research school a la the Harvards and Stanfords of the universe in the first line is incredibly misleading.76.6.69.31 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy and Criticisms Page Discussion

I am challenging the rationale of having a Controversy and Criticisms section. Before I did this, I looked up various other university pages to get an idea of their specific tones. For example, The University of California at Berkeley, perhaps the most controversial university in the United States, does not even have a criticism section. Other private religious schools such as the University of Notre Dame and Oral Roberts University do not have a criticism page either. This page is meant to give facts about the university, not opinions. Most of the criticisms in this section stem from people who signed a code of ethics with the university –both faculty/staff and students are required to do this –and later broke the code of conduct. This article is not the place for a discussion about Baylor’s position on alcohol or sexual orientation, because these are the policies of a privately funded university. In short, this criticism section reflects a very negative view on Baylor’s policies, a view not shared by the vast majority of students and staff who have agreed to the University's code of conduct.File cabinet 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Friend, not all criticism comes from people who broke a code of conduct. I'm a critic, and I didn't break the code of conduct. Even if the perspectives in this section came from people who had broken the rules, that does not necessarily mean that some of those rules aren't ridiculous and/or sorely out of place at an academic institution coming from a denomination known for its advocacy of soul-competency and individual perspectives on religion. (BT, Nov. 11, 06)
Agree with much of the above unsigned comment (by File cabinet). The statement in the section that claims " A number of students organized an off-campus protest with 200 alumni, students and community leaders that garnered national media attention for homosexual students at the institution" is certainly a pure fabrication. A search of "Matthew Bass" at www.msnbc.com, www.cbsnews.com, and www.abcnews.com does not produce results for the year 2003 pertaining to the incident mentioned. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising", and likewise "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Just because something is reported in a local newspaper or from a local television station does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia; read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information". There are also tons of "weasel words" within the section; read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. As the above unsigned comment has been on this page for some time (apparently since 15 September 2006), with no response, I'm going to go ahead and remove the section.
Pesci 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on my comments below, I obviously do not think this is the ideal forum for the discussion of LGBT criticism. But, based on my attendance at the above named protest, I can attest to the attendance of 200 alumni, students and community leaders. Further, news articles appeared on the AP (and published in hundreds of papers), MotherJones Magazine, Bill O'Reilly, CNN, WFAA TV, PlanetOut.com, The Southern Voice, The Houston Voice, Houston Chronicle, The Chronicle of Higher Education... as your parents did not really disappear when you covered your eyes as a baby, so do actual events not really disappear when they fall off the front page of CBSNEWS.com. If you spent time in research, you'd find news articles on all these named sources and many more. But, I could hardly fault you for not taking 3 hours to do research on something this insignificant to most of us.
The following statements..... "It is also worth nothing that, according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising", and likewise "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Just because something is reported in a local newspaper or from a local television station does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia; read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information"." .....could very easily be applied to anything on the Baylor page. It's a matter of characterization. I offer that denying the existence of honest criticism constitutes a soapbox of a different kind.
I do, however, agree with you, that some of what I read in the controversy section was over characterized (in the same way as your prompt dismissal of critics). Still, is simple deletion your answer? That seems to be the easy way out. It's clear that you've deemed all of these criticisms an unfounded, based on your comments here. You'd do better to consider that your lack of understanding of an alternative perspective means that it does not hold validity. (BT, Nov. 11, 06)

TO THOSE IN FAVOR OF INCLUDING A CONTROVERSY SECTION: All universities have critics, and often that criticism is well-founded. Baylor could stand to face its critics on LGBT issues, academic freedom issues, and its inconsistencies with its own religious/Baptist heritage. One of the most frustrating experiences at Baylor is the way the administration silences any and all controversy. To have that controversy silenced here hardly seems in the democratic spirit of Wikipedia. I'd like to think there was a way of keeping Baylor's administration honest about its sometimes bad judgment, and there very well may be, but I doubt Wikipedia is that place. I am not naïve, Wikipedia is not unbiased, but it does strive for that. I think the reason people want to include this criticism section is to counter the clearly unquestioned support for everything Baylor produced by most editors of this page. I suggest that all contributors edit against the non-encyclopedic pro/anti-Baylor agitprop. Further, I suggest the coordination of a blog to discuss controversies; then, link it to the bottom of this page. This is a better way, and you won't have to worry that someone has minced your clear arguments anonymously from some Baylor Library computer terminal. (BT, Nov. 11, 06)

"But, based on my attendance at the above named protest, I can attest to the attendance of 200 alumni, students and community leaders.". This statement is irrelevant; there is no way to confirm the veracity of the claim that you personally attended an event, unless you wish to break your anonymity; but even if you did, one must keep in mind Wikipedia: No original research.
"as your parents did not really disappear when you covered your eyes as a baby, so do actual events not really disappear when they fall off the front page of CBSNEWS.com". However, as I stated before, a search of the websites (which essentially is a search of its archives) revealed nothing, which means that they never covered it (as these news organizations are literally "for the record"). Neither did ABC News, MSNBC (which doubles as a joint-production with Newsweek), nor CNN.
"To have that controversy silenced here hardly seems in the democratic spirit of Wikipedia." Please read Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY".
"I suggest that all contributors edit against the non-encyclopedic pro/anti-Baylor agitprop. Further, I suggest the coordination of a blog to discuss controversies; then, link it to the bottom of this page. This is a better way, and you won't have to worry that someone has minced your clear arguments anonymously from some Baylor Library computer terminal.". People should keep in mind Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states that "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MESSAGE BOARD OR BLOG SERVICE". If people wish to start a blog, providing a link to the blog from within the Wikipedia article is inappropriate because it would be considered advertising.
"Still, is simple deletion your answer?" Yes, given the unencyclopedic nature of the subject matter in the context of issues raised by FileCabinet and the overuse of weasel words to exaggerate the significance of topics.
"It's clear that you've deemed all of these criticisms an unfounded, based on your comments here." Based on the unencyclopedic nature of the subject matter (e.g., an event so non-notable that even CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. would not cover it), the material simply doesn't have a place in Wikipedia, although it may be suitable elsewhere.
"You'd do better to consider that your lack of understanding of an alternative perspective means that it does not hold validity". Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."
Pesci 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with BT, I am AGAINST removing the controversies section. The university obviously has a few past and present meaningful controversies, to remove that section would only be covering them up and removing good information from Wikipedia. There are plenty of pages on Wiki that have PRO and CON sections. FileCabinet, if your reason for wishing to remove information is that similiar information is not on other pages, why don't you propose adding to other pages instead of deleting from this one? If Berkeley doesnt have a controversy section, but you feel there are controversies involved at that campus, you can edit that article and add them. I am always in favor of MORE information, and always against LESS information. And your argument that the only sources of controversy are students who broke the rules is unfounded. The section in question currently doesn't mention any people that broke any rules. It only lists the policies that are in question, and a ranking that is provable. You say the page is for only facts, and that is exactly what I see here. Furthermore, I am not a student at Baylor, but I do find this to be interesting,useful information. If I was considering becoming a student, this information could be vital. Lastly, I don't agree with you just because Baylor is a "privately funded university" means that it should silence all critics and hide all controversial policies. So, the source of funds discerns what sections an article can contain? From reading your comments, it seems you only want to censor this information because it casts a "negative view on Baylor's policies".
"And your argument that the only sources of controversy are students who broke the rules is unfounded. The section in question currently doesn't mention any people that broke any rules. It only lists the policies that are in question, and a ranking that is provable. You say the page is for only facts, and that is exactly what I see here."
You are refering to the current text on the entry. When File_cabinet made that post it contained many other statements concerning people who had left Baylor because they broke school policy to which they previously agreed. Unsigned, you neeed to know what you are commenting on before you make wild accusations.
Wacores 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Fixed a few minor misspelled words.

[edit] Scott Drew image

Image:Scott Drew.jpg is currently a fair-use promotional photograph up for deletion. As such, the Scott Drew article is in need of a more freely licensed replacement. Wikipedia would benefit greatly if a member of the Baylor community was able to obtain a high-quality image of Scott Drew and contribute it under a free license. Thanks, Craig R. Nielsen 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baylor policies

The following was removed from the main article and moved here to continue the discussion:

PLEASE do not place information on this page concerning Baylor's policy on homosexuality as it is not conducive to this article. Baylor is a Baptist University and will ALWAYS uphold the standards deemed "Christ-like" according to the General Baptist Convention of Texas. In spite of this fact, gay students are allowed to attend Baylor and acceptance has nothing to do with sexual preference. There were over 20,000 applicants to the university by last January; please try and prove that Baylor screens them all to decide weather or not they are gay! It is true, as in any religious institution, that there are guidelines concerning faculty and staff and how they display themselves in relation to Baylor. If you have any issues with this, please feel free to contact me personally via wikipedia!

--Baylorbear14 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Baylor2012.jpg

Image:Baylor2012.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Permission of the Texas Legislature"

I have concerns regarding the statement "Amidst concerns of a potential conservative takeover, the university changed the terms of its charter in 1991 with the permission of the Texas legislature in order to establish a governance less directly dependent upon the Baptist General Convention of Texas."

Baylor is a Non-Profit Corporation in Texas and a change to its articles of incorporation would not have required the "permission of the Texas legislature." The acts of the Texas legislature are public, so if this statement is true, it should be footnoteable.

I would propose the following language, "Amidst concerns of a potential conservative takeover, the university changed the terms of its charter in 1991 to establish a governance less dependent upon the Baptist General Convention of Texas." The word "directly" is unnecessary because the change made Baylor less dependent upon the BGCT both directly and indirectly.

Alphatexana 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Institutional Organization Section

I'd propose a clarification in this section. It currently states, "While they share the Baylor name, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Baylor College of Dentistry and the Baylor Health Care System in Dallas are no longer affiliated with Baylor University."

"Affiliated" is a fairly loose term. This article already states correctly that Baylor University's board elects 25% of the Baylor College of Medicine's Board, and that President Lilley is on BCM's board. While the two entities are incorporated separately, the limited shared governance should be sufficient to indicate that they are "affiliated."

There is no shared governance between Baylor University and Baylor College of Dentistry or Baylor Health Care in Dallas, so the statement is correct as to these two entities.

The article should also link to the wiki's page on Baylor College of Dentistry.

Alphatexana 20:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditions

Fairly new at this editing wikipedia thing, so I could use some help. I moved the University Mace section from the Trivia to the Traditions section, but it could use some word-smithing as it looks to be taken directly from the Baylor page. Also something should probably be mentioned about other Baylor traditions such as the ring, Ring Out, slime caps, etc, all which are summarized at Baylor Traditions Q&A. I would do it myself, but would probably screw up the whole page and have the discussion board yell at me, so I figured I'd give people a chance to say what they'd like to see on the page. 76.187.184.203 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] semiprotected

for a little while because of an outbreak of ip vandalismDGG (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)