Talk:Liberty University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
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.

Umm...this whole page is ridiculously biased. If you have a POV, fine, but this is not the place for that to come out. I'm tired of all the non-objective stuff on Wikipedia. There's a lot going on at that place. You wouldn't know it to read this page, though. Would somebody create a legitimate page a la the kind other universities enjoy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.107.112 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the picture under the "Sports" heading. Far from being a photo of the Flames heading into a game, it was pretty obviously a generic computer-generated image of football players.

"Very high academic status"? Do you have a source for this? Dpol 12:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I completed the page from the stub. --Chandler2525 00:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Controversies

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

These controversies are listed by people who wish to piggy-back off of this article to gain recognition for their own cause.

This article is so biased against Liberty...because it is edited by a bunch of Christ haters.


I love most of the things that Christ stood for; I just hate the hypocrisy, hate-mongering, and willful ignorance that are the hallmarks of so many of today's "Christians." Also, I'm amused by the fact that Liberty University's logo is a book being burned. 69.238.20.35 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't think it's edited by a bunch of Christ haters, just people who obviously dislike Jerry Falwell therefore they are going to slander the university. No it's not fair but thats how Wikipedia goes.

Not really. If they're factually correct than it's not libelous speech. You may think they're being too hard on ol' Liberty. Maybe they are. But it's pretty easy to point out the foibles of a new, little special-interest religious college like Liberty. Especially when everything they do and say seems tailor-made to make that happen. Anyway, they're not exactly turning out academic leaders like Harvard.


If you think Liberty is a special interest, small, religious college then you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Before any Statements are made in reference to the controversies that exist in various universities (i.e. Harvard or Liberty University), it is very important to reference a credible source that provides truth for every reference to a controversy(s).Wzimmerman 01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

___________

Seriously! I came here to read about the school and it's programs and all I got was a page of criticisms. Meanwhile, I go to research other colleges and don't see any criticisms? Kind of odd if you ask me.

It might have something to do with them not teaching proper science.

-If you think it's ok to totally demean a university because you don't agree with the theory of some of their science then you better start jumping on many other schools as well.

  • There's no such thing as "their" science, there is only science. If they teach something that's false (such as that Intelligent Design is a theory), it's not science.--Hugh7 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The article highlights primarily what the university is known about-- and that's in controversies. Harvards article doesnt have its controversies listed because to everyone else theyre not that big of a deal. It is a big deal when a educational institution teaches incorrect things, that is why it is written here. whether Liberty is doing it or not isnt up for debate--- because they are doing it. Removing it would only hiding the truth as to what this institution is doing. Barcode 02:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


    • What are they teaching that is incorrect? Nurses? Teachers? Economists? Because they teach a view of intelligent deisgn ALONG with other theories including Darwins, that makes the school bad? Don't think so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.165.125 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 May 2007
Did you see anywhere in the article, or in my statement where I stated it's bad?? Don't think so. But thinking a 10,000 year old Earth is fact and presenting it-- AS FACT... IS BAD.Barcode 00:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • 'cept that "Intelligent Design" does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's pure religious conjecture dressed-up in pseudoscientific language. The people who espouse it hate science, but want to be considered serious scientists very, very badly. It makes me sad. 69.238.20.35 (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah they are teaching that as fact in a Creation Studies class. Hence the name Creation Studies. In Science classes it is taught as a THEORY along with Darwin and other theories. That is NOT bad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.0.186 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 May 2007
Please sign your posts. If they're teaching that as a scientific theory, that's very bad as it is failing to educate their students about the basics of science. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My mistake about not signing the posts. I personally do not believe in the Creation theory that they teach in creation studies class. But I absolutely don't believe a university should be stomped on because they teach other theories along with Evolution during hard sciences courses. And I'm not saying you are stomping on the university as a whole, but others have. I understand the concern some may have about their science program, and I personally would like to see them disband the creation studies course, but other than that they aren't doing anything different than most institutions. Many thousands of public and secular private universities teach more than one theory, just like Liberty. 24.127.0.186 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I am a current student at Liberty, and Evolution is NEVER taught as an okay theory in any class. Creation is the only accepted teaching, as it is the only fact. We all have to take a Creation Studies class, which digs deeper into the evidence evolutionists are using and why they're wrong, but all science classes teach creation from a 24-hour day, 7 day week, literal translation of Genesis. 65.161.73.251 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason controversies are included is because that's what is notable about LU. It's controversies aren't just things that happened at LU but actual intrinsic values of LU unlike some drama that might occur at Harvard. Dramma!

[edit] 1973 SEC charges church with "fraud and deceit"

According to Perry Deane Young in "God's Bullies" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982) "I found only one obscure interview in which Falwell admitted that the SEC was 'technically right'. One of his staff-written biographies actually says he and the church won this suit and were cleared of the charges. Such was not the case. The SEC agreed to remove the words "fraud and deceit" from the charge and the property was not placed in actual receivership until the bonds were paid off, but the church finances were put in the hands of a group of five local businessmen selected by the court to settle the mess." p215 --Hugh7 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-added Radar Magazine ranking of the school, just because you are not pleased with others' perception of the school does not negate that perception.Traffic Demon 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a ranking. It's a pseudo-serious magazine publishing nonsensical rankings like "Worst Trust-Fund-Baby College". If you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive300#Vandalism_on_Liberty_University, every uninvolved person to comment agreed that it should not be in there. No serious person without an ax to grind against Liberty would add it. --B 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link

I removed the US News & World Report link because it is dead.

[edit] Unified Truth Edits

Please stop deleting my unified truth edits

[edit] Academic Standing

I agree with the lack of source about the high academic status... Rtcpenguin

[edit] Despite its name...

I reverted this a while ago and I'm reverting it again. In this edit Rtcpenguin adds the little play on the university's name which I find rather amusing. However, it is nothing more than an attack. We cannot objectively quantify the liberty at Liberty University and there is no place for insulting the university. Ask some of the admins about neutrality and I'm pretty sure that they'd agree with me... it's just a matter of writing in neutral language, and not attacking language. gren グレン 21:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

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

It's called the National Debate Tournament. [1] FeloniousMonk 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A Wikicuriosity

The sentence pulled from the article says that an accrediting agency's recognition was revoked. The provided reference says it is still recognized. How many of these have slipped into Wikipedia unnoticed, by one POV pusher or another. Pollinator 05:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You could have looked at the links and fixed the error instead of making a POV claim. So it was on probation to lose its license for 18 months. You could have put that in instead of removing it all. Now everything is fixed and sourced anyway. Arbusto 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You should mention this to User:Arbustoo. He has been plastering it all over the place, e.g. TRACS, ICR, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Jobs (talk • contribs)
No_ Jobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a confirmed[2] sock puppet of banned User:Jason Gastrich who has a POV problem and issues with anyone who posts any controversy in articles relating to his fundamentalist beliefs. Arbusto 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


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

[edit] Debate controversy

I'm removing the following section of the article related to controversy concerning the debate team. The entire section is sourced to a blog post. Per WP:RS, blogs can not be used as sources. if someone has a valid source for the material please add it back to the article.

The touting of this by Liberty has lead to some controversy, as the overall ranking included results for novice and junior varsity debates. In varsity rankings, Liberty was twentieth. Excessive media recognition of "the best debate team in the nation" has sparked anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.
Critics have alleged that the Liberty Debate team accumulates points by sending lots of teams to small tournaments while avoiding known debate champions like Michigan State, Berkeley, Dartmouth and Harvard, instead favoring lesser ranked opponents like Kings College, Army and Richmond. [3]''

-- JJay 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:RS. Blogs are not suitable as secondary sources. As primary sources, as a source of what a particular blogger says, they are perfectly acceptable. I've restored the content. FeloniousMonk 01:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I believe it is you who misunderstand WP:RS. The applicable section is the following:
"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.
That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website...
The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane...
Fortunately that guideline has been updated into the 21st century and no long has such absurd absolute restrictions -- not that they made any sense in other centuries either. Just imagine if historians were required to ignore all letters, diaries, etc. because they "may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane...". Of course, historians don't take such writings as authoritative or "reliable", but neither do they treat, say, Pravda that way. This dependence of Wikipedia on so-called "reliable" sources is a huge problem when all of those sources are owned by a handful of corporations with strong vested interests. -- Jibal 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This article concerns Liberty University. To my knowledge, Liberty does not own the website or run the "Culture Wars" blog. Furthermore, the subject is controversial and this is the only source provided. There is also no evidence provided why this blog or Ed Drayton would be an authority on this subject. "Great caution" is not being shown here, quite the opposite actually. The blog is thus not an acceptable source in this case and the material needs to be removed unless a valid source is provided. -- JJay 02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Monk (an admin.) that you don't understand WP:RS. (In your top post you wrote incorrectly that "blogs can not be used as sources.") It's fine to stay as a primary source. If you can show that the work is "sloppy" or "uniformed" then it should be removed. Arbusto 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is obviously sloppy, since it is sourced to a blog post without even acknowledging the fact. If there was any significant controversy, there would be other sources, such as news reports. If it stays, the passge needs to be rewritten to reflect the sourcing. And neither of you seem to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. -- JJay 09:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just like intelligent design and other contentious side-issues, much the debate and controvery on Liberty's debate credentials takes place in the blogosphere; nothing unusual there. That being the case, the cite and the passage of the article are appropriate and accurate. The facts remain Liberty is ranked #1 only if you include novice and junior varsity debates with varsity. In varsity debate Liberty is ranked #20. [4] (pg 3) Unlike many universities, Liberty emphasizes all three.[5] In earning its points standing, Liberty debated second string teams.[6] (pg 10) Much of the media echoed Liberty's claim of being "the best debate team in the nation," without noting the distinction between varsity and overall rankings (to their credit the NYT did).[7] [8] It did spark anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.[9] And lastly critics like Brayton - himself a former debater - have indeed pointed all this out.[10] Thus, the passage is accurate as it stands. FeloniousMonk 15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, I don't really care if Liberty has a great debate team, a terrible debate team, or no debate team. I don't care if the team is a source of controversy or not. I don't care if the article is true or accurate. What I do care about is that the passage is sourced to an unknown blog. If you have other sources that support the assertions that are made in our article than add them to the text. If not, I am going to rewrite the passage to reflect the sourcing to this blog. -- JJay 16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but Brayton's writings on his own blog is an acceptable source of what Brayton's views are per WP:RS despite what you may think. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No. Violates WP:RS for use as both a primary and secondary source. If your argument was correct, all blog postings would be acceptable sources, since they all presumably reflect their writer's views. That is clearly not permitted under WP:RS. -- JJay 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What would be the best way to put this? Well, let's try the direct approach: JJay, your argument is ill-informed and specious. Both FM and Arbustoo have explained why you are wrong, yet you do not seem interested in listening. One seriously hopes that you'll not be engaging in an edit war or take to being tendentious for tendentiousness' sake.
I'm sure that you'll find FM both quite knowledgeable and quite good to work with so long as you weigh his advice carefully, giving it a good deal of creedence, and that you do not adopt a pugnacious tone. Just a few friendly words of advice. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You are a bit late to this, but rather than advice or the personal attacks, why don't you stick to the issue at hand. -- JJay 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Brayton

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

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

Why not "former debator" since its about debates and not evolution? It seems you are picking only one thing to choose from (ie you won't put writer because there is no source, yet do we have a independent source for "evolution activist") Arbusto 18:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
My preference would be to source the whole debate controversy to news reports that might be found in say USA Today or the Washington post. Since there is an absolute need apparently to source this to Mr. Brayton, the best we can do is indicate who Mr. Brayton is based on his bio. Another editor had described Mr. Brayton as a "journalist and social commentator". I have no evidence of this, since it is not even supported by Brayton's bio. I think the fact that Brayton may have been a debator, as you state, and also claims to be an "evolution activist", might not make him the best source to cite on this controversy given potential bias issues. If you want to add "former debator" to the description that is fine with me. It might, though, be a good idea, since wikipedia does not have a page on Brayton, to indicate where Brayton debated. -- JJay 19:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
To begin with. blogs are reliable sources about the views of the blogger. More importantly, scienceblogs.com is run by reputable publication, and the bloggers are a carefully selected group. Since you can be pretty certain that the blogger isn't impersonating Brayton, it's fine as a source. Guettarda 19:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
We have discussed this point above. If blogs "are reliable sources about the views of the bloggers", and their views are valid sources for any article, irrespective of the blogger's qualifications (which of course have not been independently verified or vetted) to speak about a given issue, the section in WP:RS concerning blogs no longer has any meaning and should be removed in its entirety. Moreover, any editor could now submit a conflicting viewpoint from a different blog on the very same issue, perhaps to state that there is no "debate controversy". I would point out that our entire discussion of the controversy, which is presented as fact, is sourced to Brayton. We would be far more credible if we sourced the controversy to at least one accepted source. Brayton may be knowledgeable and on the money; he may be completely off base- I have no way of knowing and for now his "views" are wikipedia's "facts". -- JJay 19:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So, might you tell us what would qualify as an "accepted source"? (BTW:I'm sure you mean "acceptable" as Brayton has already been accepted as a source by FM, Arbustoo and Guettarda.•Jim62sch• 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
As indicated in my first post above, see WP:RS. Other than that, are you here to discuss my grammar or the debate controversy and potential sources? -- JJay 22:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, since most the controversy over LU debate credentials have taken place in the blogosphere, your suggestion to rely on solely media articles here would have the net effect of bowdlerizing the article. By removing relevant criticisms you'd turn the debate section into a hagiographic whitewash, something I have some concerns about. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
For the time being we don't rely on any media articles. We rely on Mr. Brayton. Mr Brayton describes himself as an "evolution activist"- you have repeatedly changed that to "social commentator". We have no source at present that labels Mr. Brayton in this way. This makes me wonder who is doing the "whitewashing" here? Why do you reject describing Mr. Brayton as he describes himself?. -- JJay 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What part of "most the controversy over LU debate credentials have taken place in the blogosphere" are you having issues understanding? Also, Brayton writes on wide range of social issues -- Church and State, Gay Rights, Law, Liberty, Pop Culture, Religion and the Religious Right -- not just evolution and creationism: [11] And last I checked, evolution and creationism were a subset of the social issues that comprise the "Culture Wars" his blog's title refers to. See: Category:Issue in the Culture Wars FeloniousMonk 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the article does not talk about the "blogosphere". It states:

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

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

Jay, "If blogs "are reliable sources about the views of the bloggers", and their views are valid sources for any article, irrespective of the blogger's qualifications (which of course have not been independently verified or vetted) to speak about a given issue, the section in WP:RS concerning blogs no longer has any meaning and should be removed in its entirety" isn't an accurate summary. It isn't a matter of picking "any old blog" - Brayton is "vetted" as such, by Seeds, which publishes the blogs. Since he is connected with a very prominent blog (and contentious one), he is bound to attract attention. If he is claiming credentials which he didn't have, that would have been splashed across the Uncommon Descent (given his spat with DaveScott). Guettarda 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, you have convinced me that Brayton is a notch above the average blogger and my be supremely qualified to be quoted in this article. I would point out that I have had to fight to have the article acknowledge the use of this source. I have further repeatedly stated my discomfort with citing the entire controversy section to the views of one individual, because that is what this boils down to if we do not cite an outside source for the controversy. Finally, I do not understand why one editor is repeatedly removing the description of Brayton as an activist. That is not my POV, it is how he describes himself in his bio (see above), along with freelance writer and businessman. I think the casual reader has the right to know something about the sources we are using without having to undertake their own investigation. When we cite the ACLU, Moral Majority, Wall Street Journal or The Nation, readers implicitly understand that they operate from a strong viewpoint and can judge accordingly. Brayton is an unknown entity, hence the need for some description and "social commentator", frankly, does not tell us anything. -- JJay 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Non-Blog source for debate team controversey

The mathematician and columnist John Allen Paulos wrote about this in his ABC News column. It is not a blog, it is a column. So source it to here if its still an issue. It contains all the same information (its all in the second half of the story. The relevant material begins in the last couple of paragraphs of the first page and onto the second page.) Brentt 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Just wanted to know

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

[edit] Alumni

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

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


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

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

[edit] Removal of Equality Ride information

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

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

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

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


---I feel like I should respond to the gay charge above. It's true if you are caught doing sexual things on campus you get reprimands and it's very easy to be removed from the school if you do it many times. However, the reps are the same whether you are homosexual or not. So yes gay people have been removed, but many more heterosexual have been removed as well. 13:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the gay rights activists were on campus twice in my time there. The first time they were allowed and I heard reports of some students serving them muffins but that might of been a joke. The second time the activist were allowed to wave signs around at the gates but were eventually arrested for trespassing because they kept trying to enter the school. (they were specifically warned)

[edit] This page needs work...clean up

This is a very strange page, especially its organization.

  • Why are the school's financial past chronicled under "Religious foundation"?
  • Why is the controversy concerning its gay students under the heading of "Academics and rankings"?
  • Why is the "Quiz Bowl" subheading under "Debate"?

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

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


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

I think many of the article's POV issues can be attributed to editors like User:FeloniousMonk, who have been patrolling articles like this and inserting original research such as "the mischaracterization by the media (that Liberty has one of the best debate programs)" without sourcing it, and using dubious sources (such as forums) as an excuse to insert as many criticisms as possible in the article. I'm no fan of Liberty University, but there are enough well-founded criticisms from established sources that this should not be necessary. People like this are only interested in pushing an agenda, so the important thing is to counteract them by getting as many editors in here as possible who don't have a bias one way or the other. Aplomado talk 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any problem displaying "dirt" on the college. That said, criticisms of other colleges should be encouraged as well. The problem comes from the fact that Liberty is so unique so it becomes a focal point for research, research others can cite. Still, that is not reason to remove accurate (or debatedly accurate) information. --David Youngberg 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing section

Removed: The mischaracterization by the media of Liberty having "one of the nation's great collegiate debate programs"[12] has sparked anger in other debate leagues, including the two parliamentary leagues.[13]

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

B) Forums are not acceptable sources per Wikipedia policy.

--Aplomado talk 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. If the media characterizes something incorrectly, which they have here, see above discussion, then it is mischaracterized by definition. The existing cites support this. That the characterization or mischaracterization of Liberty as #1 has sparked anger in other debate leagues is a verifiable fact. That anger was voiced where such discussion usually takes place, in the various league's debate forums. Thus the American Parlimentary Debate Forum is an acceptable primary source for what has been said on the American Parlimentary Debate Forum. FeloniousMonk 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't have a discussion, come to a conclusion and put that into the article. No matter how reasoned you think you might be, that's original research. See: WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F, which says an example of original research is: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source..."
Also, if it has indeed sparked anger, you should be able to cite it with something more reliable then a league's bulletin board, which is not an acceptable source per Wikipedia policy. See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet.
For the record, FM, it is sad statement on you that I should have to explain simple Wikipedia rules to an administrator. The weak qualifications to become an administrator on this site has unfortunately meant that it is being overrun by administrators who don't have a clue what they're doing. Aplomado talk 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a policy you have a real problem following: WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 22:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope you have a better response than that. Aplomado talk 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to continue down that road I sure do, but I don't think you'll like it. FeloniousMonk 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't ask for much. I believe that Liberty has been roundly criticized for its debate competition tactics. Just provide a cite beyond some forum, that's all I ask. When you say things like the "mischaracterization by the media" and don't cite anyone, you're asking for trouble. Aplomado talk 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek debate article

Despite the efforts of our anon friend here to spin this otherwise, 68.192.122.181 (talk · contribs), the Newsweek article of February 2006, [14], is one of the sources that prompted the controversy referred to in the debate section (that is along with Liberty's touting of the same line). That's because the article was factually inaccurate and contains mis-characterizations. For example, it claimed that Liberty was "currently ranked No. 1 in the country, above Harvard (14th) and all the other big names..." and "...competitive at all three levels—varsity, JV and novice." Yet as the article correctly points out, the National Debate Tournament records for 2005 and 2006 show that In varsity rankings, Liberty was only ranked # 1 due to it's junior varsity and novice results, results most schools don't consider. In varsity rankings Liberty was ranked 20th in 2005 and 17th in 2006. This article, and Liberty's marketing dept. taking advantage of the confusion this created for all it's worth, are the sources of the controversy the article descibes. The subsequent articles presented in the second paragraph, ABC News of April 2 2006 [15] and Associated Press of April 8 2006 [16] both cover this controversy and are written in response to it. But User:68.192.122.181 is trying to present it the other way around with the two later articles, the criticism written in April, presented first, and the first article, the source of the criticism written in February, presented afterwards as a rebuttal to the criticism it prompted! This simply will not fly. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Liberty Christian Academy

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


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

-RHCP

[edit] White/Caner Debate

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

October 16 of what year? yEvb0 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Dinosaur bone?

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

I agree. The speech is here. I'd like to see more info on this bone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.148.222 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Yhea I watched the video, but do not know if this was a joke in the video, or if it is true, and then the university itself is a complete academic joke.--169.232.125.176 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe this might be it. The article is from 1991 in Creation magazine with the hosting website being Answers in Genesis. FGT2 13:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honorary doctorates?

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

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

[edit] Vandalism

There has been a spike in vandalism today, so I have protected the article for 24 hours from new and unregistered users. IrishGuy talk 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we noticed it at the same time. Jerm 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem :) IrishGuy talk 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism probably because of increased media attention to the subject with the death of Jerry Falwell earlier today, hopefully once it's out of front-page news the vandalism won't be an issue when the protection is over. --Wingsandsword 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That is what I am hoping for so I only put on a 24 protection. IrishGuy talk 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The sentence in Religious Foundation which states a "74% increase over the past five years" would be served well if we knew what specific years the increase took place.

paul klenk [[User talk:Paul Klenk|talk 22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bombs as controversial?

Does the incident with the homemade bombs on May 21st really belong in the "controversy" section? I'm not going to change it unilaterally, given this is such a contentious article, but it seems a bit out of place. I mean, the VaTech shootings aren't listed as a controversy. Including the bombs as controversy in this article reeks of the bias so many people complain about elsewhere in this article. I think the other controversies listed are fair, but I don't think a kid with homemade napalm stands as an example of the controversial events that have taken place at LU.

As I said, I'm not going to change it outright at this very moment, as I think that it belongs in the article. However, unless someone has an strong objection, I intend to find a more suitable place for it in the near future. NihilisticMystic 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of equal signs to take it out of that section. I don't know how much it really needs to be in the article. Ten years from now, everyone will remember the Virginia Tech shootings - that's significant . But ten years from now, nobody will remember this thing with the bombs. It's worthy of a WikiNews article, but I don't see how it really matters enough to be here. When I was at Tech, someone threw multiple homemade bombs into the courtyard near our building. While very interesting and shocking to the people in the building, nobody today would really care about it and it certainly doesn't need to be in Tech's article. --BigDT 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur with BigDT. Other than the student being a freshman last year at LU, this incident has absolutely nothing to do with the university. The alleged intentions for the bombs were for the Fred Phelps protestors, not Falwell, his family, the church, or even the school. It is my opinion that this incident be completely removed from the page, and all references to Uhl be eliminated as well. Edtva21 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Either way seems reasonable to me. I don't see any harm in leaving it in, so long as it's not included as a controversy. However, I also see the logic in excluding it completely. I don't feel strongly enough about its exclusion to be the one to remove it, but I see no harm in someone taking the initiative to do so. NihilisticMystic 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That being said, I'm taking that initiative. It just has absolutely nothing to do with the university whatsoever. As stated previously, the only connection is that the suspect was a freshman student last year at LU. Uhl was not even in Lynchburg, VA before the day he was arrested. None of this even took place on the campus of the university, and there was no incident nor intent for use of them on the campus of the university. As stated by Campbell County Sherriff, Terry Gaddy, the believed intent was for use in the parking lot of the Toys 'R Us across the street where the protestors from Fred Phelps' WBC was protesting the funeral of Dr. Falwell. If this must be included somewhere in Wikipedia, it is my recommendation it appear on WBC or Fred Phelps' page. Although, this just doesn't seem like a big enough deal for inclusion and as BigDT said, a year from now, no one will proabably even remember it. Edtva21 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GARGH

What a load of crap this university is.

This should only be NPOV but seriously, any university that has abortion as against the code of conduct is unbelievle considering the name of the university... 202.10.86.59 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

--Liberty is reference to a Bible verse, not liberty to do whatever you want while you are attending a private university. 24.125.103.13 01:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the rules pertain to activities conducted outside the university, during the students private life. I care not for what text the word is used from, the meaning of the universities title is rather contradictory to what goes inside the universities bounds. I would legally oppose if any university tried to fine me for something I done in my private life. 131.170.90.4 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--Liberty has the right to enforce whatever rules it wants on its students. Remember the students are not forced to attend the university, and a majority of us (as I am a student at Liberty) agree with having that rule. J3r0 13:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

J3r0, would that be "consensus"? (Little WP humor there... very little.) --profg 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't have the right to enforce whatever rules it wants on its students. Not that it is unlawful to do what they are doing, the university still has to abide by the law, and cannot make its students do unlawful things. Again, so you don't misconstrew my words, Liberty isn't being unlawful here, just downright unethical in my opinion. I would not be at all surprised if Liberty left itself open to legal action with these current rules. 131.170.90.4 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A FORUM. AshleyScripter {talkback} 03:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Building Update

Under campus life where it states that there are six dorms currently under construction, this should be, (and was before) changed to completed. These athletic dorms were completed this month. J3r0 13:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academics & Rankings

I've tried to clean this up a bit after recent edits, but feel free to discuss needed changes here. Especially, some citations are needed; plus I removed a non-notable reference (see WP:RS), that was re-inserted once. Comments? --profg 01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral claims to a lack of notability should be supported before removing a source. - Nascentatheist 13:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If this is about the Radar thing, try reading the article. It's a sarcastic opinion piece, not anything that belongs in a serious encyclopedia. It has categories like "Worst Trust-Fund-Baby College". If you click on the next article after you get to the end, they have a thrilling piece from the intellectual abyss called "100 REASONS YOU'RE STILL SINGLE". They are not basing their "article" on graduation rates, acceptance rates, high school GPAs, professors with Ph.D.s, or any other objective criteria. Strangely enough, nobody has felt this article worth mentioning on the articles for Michigan State University, Bennington College, Cornell University, Virginia Military Institute, Texas Woman's University, etc. Oh, but they aren't Christian schools, so you guys don't hate them the way you do Liberty. --B 04:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, B, you've just removed yourself as an objective editor by violating both WP:NPA and WP:AGF, trying to ascribe motive to other editors (e.g., "you guys don't hate them the way you do Liberty") and trying to turn this into an "us vs. them" issue between Christians and those who are not Christians. Radar is a social commentary site of sorts, very much like TMZ.com, which, you may note, appears as a reference quite frequently in other articles. Complaints and edit summaries that demand that I provide previous references to edits in which I have cited it are nothing short of misdirective; and comparing it to the Onion, which is entirely fictional, is also misdirective and irrelevant. Even so, it would be fair to cite an Onion satirical piece such as this one in an article about the 9/11 attacks as part of the reaction to it. Social commentary and satirical references often appear in encyclopedias on various subject, including at Wikipedia, so there's nothing unusual about such an inclusion in the Liberty article. Returning to the issue of the Radar reference, it doesn't matter if I, personally, have never used it. What matters is its relevance to this article; and claiming that restoring it is "vandalism" is POV. I don't view it as such, and you've made no case that it is. Declaring it so doesn't make it so. Having said all of that, if you can't edit this article with a little less passion, you need to recuse yourself from it, in the spirit of WP:COI. - Nascentatheist 07:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've read the Radar article, and to me it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of notability. Are Radar's rankings mentioned in the Wikipedia articles of any of the other universities mentioned? -- Cat Whisperer 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No, of course they aren't. They aren't rankings. This is a JOKE article. Read some of the other articles ... they are all pseudo-serious. They rank the "Worst Trust-Fund-Baby College" in this same ranking list. Only someone with an ax to grind against one of the schools listed would want to include it here. This whole thing is why nobody on the outside takes Wikipedia seriously - no serious encyclopedia, news service, or anything else would even consider mentioning this "study" except in jest. --B 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as the social commentary angle goes, if is notable at all, it should be along the lines of "Radar magazine thought Liberty University was an easy target and made fun of it in one of their issues". However, putting Radar magazine's opinion in the "Rankings" section of this article is completely unencyclopedic, and should be removed. It looks like there are 3 in favor of removal, and 1 in favor of inclusions. Any more discussion before I go ahead and remove it? -- Cat Whisperer 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like I've been beaten to the punch. -- Cat Whisperer 03:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Radar article should remain on the grounds that the rankings are largely a matter of public perception, and like it or not, that is the general public's perception of Liberty. Traffic Demon 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... no. The public perception of Liberty is irrelevant to inclusion of this "article". This is a joke piece and Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. I've looked at your contributions and you have about zero useful contributions to the encyclopedia. Please contribute constructively or not at all. --B 14:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's obvious that consensus here is that Radar lacks notability, and is not a reliable source. --profg 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


  • There is absolutely no reason to include this opinion piece in a serious encyclopedia article. 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.165.122 (talk)


Just a note of interest, LU has voluntarily left TRACS. There is an article on the LU website and they have removed the TRACS link from the LU site as well. 71.206.138.192 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased POV article

This was one of the most Biased and POVed articles that I've come across on Wikipedia. There seems to be an Admin who is desperate to keep the bias and POV in the article. I've followed every wikipedia rule in attempting to clean up this piece of trash. I've cited every single change. The blind hate for Liberty is not a reason to turn wikipedia articles into hit pieces. Ghostmonkey57 02:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I've added the POV tag to this article until it can be cleaned up. Ghostmonkey57 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
Are you referring to NawlinWiki? NawlinWiki is an impartial admin who does good work for Wikipedia. There's a ton of bias down in the controversy section, but what NawlinWiki reverted was where you added essentially a press release about the facilities. "State of the art" and "brand new" are usually terms to avoid in an encyclopedia. --B 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've not seen another Wikipedia College Article that is as slanted as this one is. My only goal was to start improving it. "Advertising" was not my intent. You see, I can live with your edits, NawlinWiki seemed to want to remove any positive attributes from the article. If you agree that there is is a ton of bias in the controversy section, why don't we work on fixing it. There isn't even a reason for a "Controversy" section in a University Article. There isn't one for very left leaning schools like UC Berkley, so there shouldn't be one for right leaning schools either. This should be a factual article about the school. PERIOD. Not a hit piece. Ghostmonkey57 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
The reason the 'Controversy' section is there that whether we like it or not, this University has been controversial in the past, and we should mention that. The information in the Controversy section should still be neutrally-written and factual, however (and I believe it is). As for Berkeley, I'm not immediately aware of any controversies they've been involved in - but if you know of any, and can write a neutral and verifiable account of them, feel free to add it to their article. Terraxos 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely agree that the University has sought to be a main point in controversial topics. Their founder took on many controversies and spoke publically, showing that he chose to make his University know as taking a stand for what they belief. If the University has a history of controversy that has been the center of media attention, then it's worth citing. There are reliable sources on this! 208.253.81.23 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it. FeloniousMonk 05:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but Wikipedia policy is not served by trying to turn an article into a smear piece simply because you do not like the target of the smear. That is precisely what is being done here with this article. There is absolutely no reason to mention controversy in an article about a University. Anyone with an agenda can find a controversy with ALL universities in one aspect or another. This article should present facts about the university without going into a POV smear campaign. The so called "reliable" sources that are cited in the smear section are anything but. We DO NOT have a consensus on the removal of the POV tag. DO NOT do it again. Ghostmonkey57 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
I don't think you have a firm grasp of Wikipedia policy. Controversy sections are perfectly acceptable per WP:NPOV. What you want is a hagiography. Genuine controversies involving Liberty exist as evidenced by reliable sources. Unless you can show a specific example as to how these are inaccurate, the sources wrong or are being misused you don't have an argument here; or a justification for the POV template you added. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of things that are not true. I have consistently applied wikipedia policy to my articles here at wikipedia. I do not try to white-wash articles or apply a biased POV. There is not a consensus that this section is unbiased. In fact, other members have consistently stated that this section IS biased. You have no right to remove the POV tag from this section absent consensus. Ghostmonkey57 14:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
  • Again, the controversy is something cited from reliable sources. I am sorry that the college has created a reputation for controversy, but that's what Jerry wanted. He wanted to make us bold and stand up. I'm a LU alumni and after having learned of the past of several of his leaders (Ron Godwin) i have been shocked to see that Rev. Moon was connected to the school. So, yes, Jerry taught controversy to his students...if he didn't want it that way, he would not have founded the Moral Majority nor would have gotten involved in politics. He was an outspoken man and there are plenty of credible, reliable sources that prove so. 208.253.81.23 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I just pointed out below that the sources used in at least one section of the controversy section ARE NOT RELIABLE!!!! They are anti-semitic and leftist conspiracy pages, not news sources. These sources have absolutely no right to be included as sources on wikipedia per Policy. Please continue the discussion below under the new section. Ghostmonkey57 17:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

[edit] Absurd and Biased Sources in Controversy Section

Three sources used in the 1994 Controversy Section, Z Magazine, The Consortium and Watch Unto Prayer are not reliable sources. In fact, Watch Unto Prayer is a radical anti-semitic conspiracy blog!! Their homepage consists of article after article screaming about a "JUDEO-MASONIC NEW WORLD ORDER." This is what we are using as a source on Wikipedia? I am absolutely disgusted!!! I must further point out that someone apparently knew that "Watch Pair" was actually "Watch Under Prayer" and tried to hide it by concealing the actual name of the Source. Apparently whoever first put this in as a source was hoping no one would investigate the link and find out that a radical anti-semitic conspiracy outfit was being used to source at Wikipedia. Similarly Z Magazine and The Consortium are both extremely left-leaning conspiracy outlets. NOT RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES! I am absolutely APPALLED that this has been permitted to go on this long, and as such am removing all of the content sourced under these biased links. Ghostmonkey57 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The following were the previous sources cited in the 1994 Controversy Section: ______________________________________

  1. ^ Berkowitz, Bill. "Moon Shadows", Z Magazine, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-01-04.
  2. ^ Harold Paine, Birgit Gratzer. "Rev. Moon and the United Nations", Global Policy Forum, November 2001. Retrieved on 2007-01-04.
  3. ^ a b Perry, Robert. "Dark Side of Rev. Moon: Buying the Right", The Consortium, 1997. Retrieved on 2007-10-30.
  4. ^ Kennedy, John. "Finance: Moon-Related Funds Filter to Evangelicals", Christian Today, February 9, 1998. Retrieved on 2007-10-30.
  5. ^ "Jerry Falwell", Christian Media, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-10-30.
  6. ^ "Power Elites: The Merger of Right and Left", The Watch Pair, 1997. Retrieved on 2007-10-30.

______________________________________

None of these meet the criteria for a reliable source under wikipedia policy. Several of them were purposely changed in order to hide their true identity. For example, the source: "Jerry Falwell", Christian Media, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-10-30, actually links to the Homosexual Publication "The Advocate." The source: "Power Elites: The Merger of Right and Left", The Watch Pair, 1997. Retrieved on 2007-10-30, actually links to an anti-semitic conspiracy outfit called "Watch Unto Prayer which includes numerous articles on a "JUDEO-MASONIC NEW WORLD ORDER". Hate groups and anti-semitic organizations ARE NOT reliable sources. This is the equivalent of a KKK member quoting from stormfront on an article on Martin Luther King Jr. Under no circumstances would that nonsense be tolerated, yet we actually have people here advocating the use of this biased sources because many don't like Liberty University and/or Jerry Falwell.

I am sorry, but Wikipedia credibility and Policy is not served by linking to sources that are obviously conspiracy groups and anti-semitic hate sites. I am absolutely OUTRAGED that no one bothered to check up on these sources before. I will take this dispute all the way to arbitration if needed. There is no excuse to give anti-semitic organizations ANY credibility whatsoever by linking them to wikipedia as a "reliable source". Ghostmonkey57 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I did a bit of digging. I did a google search and found that the Falwell-Moon connection is consistently touted by one person, "Robert Parry". For those who don't know Parry is a conspiracy theorist who absolutely despises people that he deems conservative. He and a few others were involved in a bogus "October Suprise" Conspiracy regarding Ronald Reagan, and were caught in several blatant lies. (http://hnn.us/articles/4249.html) Game, Set, Match. Parry is not a reliable source per wikipedia policy, as such the 1994 section needs to remain deleted. Ghostmonkey57 17:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
then what do you say of Godwin who worked for Jerry, then went to Moons paper then back to Jerry? There is obviously a connection to Jerry and Liberty ForHisGlory 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I took out the articles by Perry BUT the article by Christianity Today titled "Moon-related funds filter to evangelicals." is an extremely credible source. That must stay. For a conservative Christian source to state this, it makes it very credible! ForHisGlory 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, Christianity Today, Global Policy Forum and, Washington Post are all reliable, credible sources. I suggest just taking out the sources that are not credible, not taking out the controversy that there is plenty of coverage on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForHisGlory (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The Global Policy Forum IS NOT a credible and reliable source. The Washington Post is. Further you DID NOT remove the anti-semitic "watch pair" link that I previously discussed here. The information from the Washington Post and Christianity Today article can stay as it's reliable. The Global Policy and "Watch Pair" conspiracy pages ARE NOT reliable sources and cannot stay. The information that is now in the article is sufficient to cover the "controversy" and now includes balance from the Washington Post article and the Christianity Today article. Ghostmonkey57 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
    • thanks for getting that cleaned up. I didn't realize that i left the watch pair article in. By the way, what do you think of Godwin leaving LU to work for Moon at Washington Times and then to come back to LU? 208.253.81.23 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LUO pertinent information

Should all the degrees offered by Liberty University Online really be listed on this article? Anyone who cared could look it up the university's website. I also still think this section reads rather like an advertisement; does any brave soul want to offer to fix it up? (: AshleyScripter {talkback} 03:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire section and summarized it with one sentence under Academics. I have a feeling few would object to this edit since this talk page gets no action. Ashley {talkback} 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US News Ranking

I find the current wording: "The U.S. News and World Report U.S. News and World Report ranked Liberty University a "Tier-4" school, the lowest ranking the publication offers." to be unnecessarily pejorative. I'm replacing it with wording from the article Florida International University, a similarly ranked school. 216.164.33.13 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)