Talk:Baylor University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Baptist (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group.
 
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Big 12 Conference (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Big 12 Conference, a WikiProject related to the United States college athletic conference. 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Baylor University:
  • 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."

Comments[edit]

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.

why was the homosexuality criticism removed?[edit]

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.

Contradiction?[edit]

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)

Also, from a second commenter, the first paragraph states that Baylor University was founded in 1845 and is the oldest university in Texas. Southwestern University's Wikipedia article says it (Southwestern) was founded in 1840, and also says that it is the oldest university in Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.85.177.195 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dancing at Baylor?[edit]

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)

SBC Category[edit]

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.

Secret Societies[edit]

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)

Infobox[edit]

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.--NMajdantalk 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)

Controversy and Criticisms[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)
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)

a "research" uni![edit]

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

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)

Controversy and Criticisms Page Discussion[edit]

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)

If there's not a controversies section on its own, could you at least have someone clarify the section on "vision 2012"--if not drop the section entirely? It's current, but similar plans in the past (to use a BU example, the Council of 150 meeting comes to mind) don't seem to even get mentioned. As it stands right now, it seems as if the article's saying that the vision's main focus is on staying "Christian," which completely misses the point (and not to mention makes the critics of 2012 look pretty bad when they really aren't). IIRC, the vision's biggest focus is on trying to become a "tier one" university while maintaining its Christian focus. Unfortunately, its implementation came with high costs and many VERY controversial moves (such as the let's-pay-freshmen-to-retake-the-SAT scandal, constantly changing guidelines for getting tenure that made it extremely difficult for new hires, the taking out of huge loans for new construction, etc., etc.). To say 2012 is just about "strengthening Christian values" is missing the mark entirely. There's a reason it's been so controversial: its wording is rather vague and quite frankly, hard to disagree with. Who doesn't want to be a nationally-recognized research institution? Who here wouldn't like to see more students living on campus? And all that warm and fuzzy rhetoric about staying close to Baylor's Christian mission is just nice. But the problem is what 2012 doesn't say: it doesn't say how they're going to pay for it all or anything else about the implementation of it. And there's where the problems have been. Many of the most controversial moves in recent years have been "for 2012," even if many of the supporters of 2012's texts did not support those moves. 24.167.6.3 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I went to Baylor and am no fan; but as far as the LGBT stuff goes, who cares? It's a private, conservative Christian school and can do what it wants. If you don't like that environment, go somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.114.65 (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Fixed a few minor misspelled words.

Scott Drew image[edit]

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)

Baylor policies[edit]

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)

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

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)

"Permission of the Texas Legislature"[edit]

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)

Institutional Organization Section[edit]

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)

Traditions[edit]

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)

semiprotected[edit]

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

Baylor Board Votes to Seek New President[edit]

New president on the way. Maybe this should be mentioned in the wiki article (maybe not), I just don't know where to put it if it did deserve mention. http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=51913 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.49.217.215 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

I need help expanding the article The Baylor Lariat. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oldest University in Texas[edit]

This article claims that Baylor was the first University founded in Texas. Shouldn't that go to Southwestern University in Georgetown, which was founded in 1840 (Baylor 1844).--Cdman882 (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Southwestern had moved around or changed names? a few times. One of the universities that eventually became part of what is now Southwestern predates BU, but Baylor is the oldest continuously-operating university in Texas. Maybe a clarification should be in order, but that's getting down to nitty-gritty semantics.24.167.6.3 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Both Southwestern and Baylor University claim in their respective articles to to be the oldest in the state of Texas. Baylor University is a private Baptist university in Waco, Texas. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas, Baylor is the oldest university in Texas and was one of the first educational institutions west of the Mississippi River.

and Founded in 1840, Southwestern is the oldest university in Texas.

Both can't be the oldest in the state. Can I suggest the comment on oldest in the state be removed or be replaced with the language one of the oldest in the state ? Which makes the phrasing non singular superlative. Appleman1234 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions About Baylor/ Ku Klux Klan/ Basketball murder and cheating scandal[edit]

The article would address some important topics surrounding Baylor if it included a section on Governor Pat Neff and his ties to Baylor and his role as head of the Texas Ku Klux Klan. It would also be appropriate to have a fairly substantial discussion of the basketball team murder and cheating scandal that humiliated the school a few years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.103.130 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The KKK matter, if it is fact, should be addressed in the Neff article and include proper citations. The basketball team scandal is included in the basketball article and, it seems to me, is given too much weight even there. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

More Discussion of Basketball Scandal[edit]

The basketball murder/cheating scandal led to the downfall of the Baylor power structure, and resulted in a complete re-evaluation of the type of leadership style found at the University. I think a full understanding of what Baylor is all about would benefit greatly from an informed discussion of this horrible event and about the type of University climate that produced a murder. Without this sort of analysis, the Baylor entry seems to be little more than a campus guide probably approved by the Baptist church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.97.194 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, you can find sources that say that this "scandal led to the downfall of the Bayor power structure," etc.? It seems to me that, as old as Baylor is, this event is not as pivotal as you think. It is just one unhappy event in the university's history. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor might take a look at the editions of Baylor Online for some guidance on the downfall of the Baylor elite, including President Sloan as a result of the ugly incidents surrounding men's athletics and the renegade group that Baylor allowed to hijack its basketball program and its reputation. This entire Baylor article deserves a more balanced view than is given. It should not be given serious consideration as a helpful article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.118.112 (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Actually I agree that the article is so unbalanced that it cannot be given serious consideration by the reader. For instance, there is no discussion of the academic purge that took place a few years ago resulting in the loss of valuable faculty because they were not evangelicals. This is the sort of discussion that, if expanded, would leave the reader with a more rounded explanation of why Baylor is not a top tier university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.66.182 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What, seriously? Academic purge? Getting rid of anyone who isn't "evangelical"? You know I came to this page from another page on Wikipedia that espouses complaints stating that Baylor is too secular, right? The University as a whole is just enough in the middle on religious topics that it catches flak from both sides of any related issue. Find a source and call it something other than a "purge" and try again. J.M. Archer (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

alumni list[edit]

There is already a List of Baylor University people. If this section is expanded, it should be in prose form. See also SMU. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject[edit]

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Parts of article read like Baylor pamphlet?[edit]

For instance: "Although the University was founded as a teaching institution, research has long been an important part of its academic life. The University is also working to strengthen the current research environment as part of Baylor 2012. To that end, in 2004 the University dedicated a new 500,000-square-foot (46,000 m2) science complex which facilitates research on a variety of subjects.[20]" This is more appropraite in a brochure or annual report than a wiki article..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlrosen (talkcontribs) 09:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the paragraph about the law school, which crows shamelessly about how well-prepared Baylor law grads are, and how they are preferred and sought throughout the country? The excellent bar-passage stats are fine, but is this article really the place to assert that everyone wants to hire Baylor lawyers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmomlikesmusictheory (talkcontribs) 03:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor Changes About Housing[edit]

Because I spent 4 years living on campus at Baylor Univerisity (and the latter three as an R.A./Community Leader) I am intimately familiar with Baylor’s Housing Policies. I added the specific percentage (50%) of students Baylor wants on campus in the interest of specificity. In addition, I saw that a citation was needed for the line stating that Brooks Residential College was modeled after residential college at Cambridge Univeristy and other elite schools. I added the necessary citation.

Jnortey08 (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Night of the Organ"[edit]

The Halloween organ concert is no more a university-wide event than the symphony orchestra concerts are. As a school "tradition," it is utterly insignificant in comparison to the other school traditions, such as Diadeloso, Homecoming, or Sing. As such, I propose that it be removed from the homepage. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.142.212 (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- could go into a secondary article about campus traditions, though, if one were to be created. Woodshed (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is Darrell W. Six?[edit]

And why does he rate a mention in the lead? The magic of Google doesn't pull much of note. Duncan1800 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rankings section...[edit]

This is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia...

"Baylor graduates are successful, prominent people[citation needed]; in a recent survey nearly 42% of them reported that they had acquired in excess of $1 million dollars in invest-able assets by the age of forty[citation needed]. Many alumni are entrepreneurs, CEOs, or are on track in other positions to become multi-millionaires by retirement[citation needed]. Mark Hurd, the president and CEO of Hewlett Packard is a graduate of Baylor as well as Jeff Dunham, who some estimate to have financial assets well above eight figures."

The whole section is pretty humorous. Especially since it had some misspellings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.218.126 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Very little claimed information is actually sourced and some of it appears to be factually incorrect. Please add the sourced references or else these claims are subject to deletion. Macae (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 3 days[edit]

Semiprotected the page for 3 days to try to quell the vandalism related to conference realignment. If anyone has a problem, feel free to reverse without contacting me. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There are still incorrect references to the Southland conference on the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.200.171 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got them all now. That poor article was full of nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bp1996, 8 September 2011[edit]

Some jackass aggie changed the conference to southland from big 12 in every place. This should be changed back.

Bp1996 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Already done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Greek Life appears to be a victim of an edit war[edit]

Southernrights: You have repeatedly altered the alphabetical format of the list of fraternities in order to place one particular fraternity at the top of the list. Of the several dozen times that you have done this, not once have you provided a single explanation for your edit. If there is justification for your change, then please list it. Otherwise, the listing needs to remain in alphabetical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.26.98 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)