Talk:Brigham Young University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Utah (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-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 Utah (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Universities (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Brigham Young University (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Brigham Young University is part of WikiProject Brigham Young University, an attempt to write quality articles about Brigham Young University. 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Good article Brigham Young University has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 27, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Brigham Young University:

Problem with Statistics[edit]

The introduction states that 78% of men and 10% of women go on missions, the lds culture paragraph further down states 97% of men... Which is it?Nannykins (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC) There is a further problem with this, "Many students (78% of men, 10% of women) take a two-year hiatus from their studies at some point to serve as Mormon missionaries." Men serve a two-year hiatus and women serve a year and a half hiatus. This should probably be reviewed and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Princeton Review LGBT ranking[edit]

There's been a bit of back and forth about this, at this article and also at Grove City College and Wheaton College (Illinois). Under dispute is the removal of the Princeton Review's ranking of these schools as "LGBT unfriendly". I and another user reverted edits like this one. I really fail to see what the big deal is here. Here's why:

  • Princeton Review is eminently reliable as a source -- it's already being cited for other rankings on all 3 of those pages. Claiming that Princeton Review is not RS is bogus- it's one of the most established and respected college ranking groups out there (though they're all grasping at straws if you ask me).
  • Calling it "self-published" is downright misleading- PR is a major publisher of this sort of thing.
  • Saying that the claim is controversial is also bogus- obviously some people don't like that PR says this, but the claim that PR indeed said it is not controversial at all.
  • You have a decent point that we don't know what went into deciding this ranking, but we don't know exactly how PR makes any of its rankings- they are nonetheless regarded as significant because PR is a respected voice in this area.
  • The claim that this alleges "unlawful hostility" is bogus too- no such allegation is being made. The PR would not publish the list if there was any chance it could be libelous.
  • Claims of "undue weight" are a bit of a stretch since only one sentence is being inserted. The LGBT issue is increasingly important in the public view of these colleges, and it deserves at least some weight.

A bit of bickering about this went on at User talk:Closeapple and my talk page, but included no substantial discussion of the points above. Mostly just arguing about whether or not Universities are allowed to have "anti-gay" policies, and allegations that I and User talk:Unique Ubiquitous are "acting in concert" to advance personal agendas. I'm moving the discussion into the article talk space to keep it on topic. Please let's just discuss the removal of this one sentence from the articles. Staecker (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be escalated to WP:RSN. Princeton Review is inherently unreliable because their methodology is so poor (their rankings are based on input from a very small number of self-selected students). The Princeton Review rankings make USN&WR look like world-class assessment and that's tough to do. ElKevbo (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to go to RSN if there's consensus to do that. But Princeton Review's rankings are referenced no less than 5 4 other times in this very article. Has there been controversy about the sourcing of those statements? (Really- I don't know.) And do you really want to remove Princeton Review from all our college articles? Their rankings are constantly referenced all over Wikipedia. I admit I don't know much about their methodologies (or USN&WR either). Staecker (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do want to remove this source them from all articles. It's a problem affecting not just this article so it needs to be addressed in a broader venue with much more participation. ElKevbo (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Kevbo, but I'm going to withdraw my offer to post at RSN- Based on what you said I really don't know enough to try to make the case that PR should or shouldn't be considered RS for all of its rankings on WP. I take for granted that PR is one of the major authorities in this area and is reliable for that reason. If you disagree then by all means take it to RSN- it'll be a tough case to make IMO regardless of how right you are. Staecker (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There's a problem here. In your opening paragraphs of this section, you claim that the source is "eminently reliable as a source." Now you're telling us that you don't know if it's reliable. Which is it? ElKevbo (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry- I should've been clearer. And really I didn't know that anybody thought that all of PR's rankings were totally bogus. I take for granted that PR is reliable in general because of its reputation and prominence. It is also clear consensus across WP's university articles that PR should be cited for their rankings. If there's some other reason why PR rankings in general are unreliable, I'm open to hearing about it, and you may be right. My case for PR's reliability is mostly due to its status (deserved or not, I don't know) as one of the major authorities. Staecker (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Reliability is one issue. Another is undue weight. Any conservative religous school is liable to be "unfriendly" to any lifestyle they don't approve of, including straight non-marital sexual activity. Singling out their antipathy to one particular group is undue weight and amounts to agenda-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
A cursory amount of research (say, google for news articles) will show that these colleges' policies on homosexual lifestyles are a major point of public discussion, and that basically nobody cares about their policies on heterosexual lifestyles. For better or worse, this is how people evaluate the importance of these types of things today. Having little or no mention of this in the article would be a real omission, and (above general RS concerns aside) PR's list demonstrates mainstream concern on this point that warrants at least a sentence in the article. Staecker (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the content should be allowed to stay on the article unless it is deemed unreliable at RSN. —Eustress talk 14:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, the statement I had inserted was "PR says X" and sourced to PR saying X. There is no question of reliability there. If I had added "BYU is X" sourced to PR, then there would be a reliablity problem. The only route the opposition truly has is to argue that PR's statement is not important/notable enough to be included. Though I would disagree with any such attempt. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't bothered commenting for about 12 days on this, I think. (In the meantime, the discussion seems to have gone across several talk pages, and landed here.) I'll try and explain in more detail later if I can — I've been trying to figure out how to word it, on and off, for 2 days — but this will have to do for now. One of my problems with this is that this ranking is blatantly vague on its face: it's like "rudest teachers" or "meanest cheerleaders" or something. Some people have suggested that TPR is wholesale non-RS; but on top of that, I would expect that even people who might consider The Princeton Review trustworthy on mainstream topics, would look at the ambiguous title and lack of explanation and wonder how many people had a hangover at TPR the day this list was due.

But here's what really is bothering me about this whole conversation: Why is anyone so adamant about including this ranking, instead of just skipping it? Surely there are plenty of less-disputed WP:RS, such as mainstream newspapers, that have brought up the "well-known" LGBT disposition at each of these colleges. Other sources probably actually explain what's going on, instead of just slapping a controversial number on some college. Why not just use sources whose reliability is more solid in the first place? --Closeapple (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to find another source to replace it with than by all means go ahead, I would not object, so long as they are better or equal. I like the use of rankings as they give a comparison, I admit that alone they are not so great for detailing a situation. As of 2 weeks ago there was some actual detail of the situation on some of the involved pages, but as you of course know, much of it was deleted. I also only posted the rankings from TPR for the worst 3 just so that there was no mistake whether they belong on the list or the signifance were low as it arguably could be for #50 or so. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this particular ranking isn't the be-all end-all for the topic. I wouldn't mind at all if it were replaced by some well-sourced other commentary on the issue. As for it being a vague and silly topic for a ranking, consider the other TPR rankings referenced on this page: "Great College Libraries", "happiest students and highest quality of life", "stone cold sober", "best value for college". A silly list like "rudest teachers" wouldn't be out of place at all in there. The "best value" one seems like it could be easily and rigorously quantified, but the others seem just as vague as "LGBT unfriendly". But people like to reference these rankings for various reasons. Why have a different standard on this issue? Staecker (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict with "Harold B Lee Library" wiki[edit]

I posted this on the Harold B Lee Library wiki talk page but I'll put it here too... On this page it states in the first paragraph that BYU is the "third-largest private university in the U.S.", however on the Harold B Lee library Wiki it states that BYU is the "second largest private university in the U.S.". This is my second post on WIKI (after the post on the HBL library page, made approx. five minutes ago) so IDK where to take it from here, I just noticed the discrepancy and wanted to point it out. thx --mike (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement about this on other websites as well. Some say second, some say third. (They are probably all copying from Wikipedia...) USC and NYU definitely have more students than BYU, so I would think it is the third largest. If University of Phoenix were counted, BYU would be fourth largest, though. I will change to third in the HBLL article and add references to—SuperRad! 07:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no way that BYU is the third-largest private university in the U.S. Even a quick glance at our own article on this topic shows how implausible it is that an institution of this size can come close to comparing with the larger for-profit institutions and I question the quality of any source that says otherwise. You can continue to narrow the scope of the comparison (e.g., most populous not-for-profit private physical campus by headcount) until BYU comes out in the top __ but at a certain point that becomes a silly fishing expedition once the list of qualifiers becomes laughably long. ElKevbo (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
First The Wiki page for the Harlod B. Lee libary is not reliable and should be thrown out.
The key word is PRIVATE university. The confusion is understandable. The statement was originally linked to List of the largest United States colleges and universities by enrollment. That page should never have been linked, since it is of ALL universities, not just private. Also, just to answer the question I know is coming a For-Profit university is not that same a private university. A university can be both or only one, For-Profit or private. I went to a For-Profit pubic university. No I don't know what made it that, but it is irrelevant.
Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth and since the cited source is reliable ("Brigham Young University, Provo". 2013. Retrieved 2014-02-05. ) and it reads

It is owned and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church. It is the third largest private university in the United States.

the statement is verifiable and cited, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That list does include private and public institutions but it's trivial to focus only on the private ones to see that BYU still doesn't make the cut.
With all due respect, it seems like you're very confused on a number of fundamental issues. First, you're completely incorrect about the distinctions between public/private and for-profit/not-for-profit. All public institutions are de jure not-for-profit institutions. Private institutions can be for-profit or not-for-profit.
Second, it's clear to anyone with some knowledge of U.S. higher education that an institution with only 35,000 students isn't going to be at or near the top of any national enrollment chart unless that chart has some very significant constraints or narrow criteria. BYU is a large institution but it simply can't compare with the largest public universities or the largest private, for-profit universities especially if we're looking at headcount and not FTE. A quick dump from IPEDS as a sanity check shows that BYU comes up sixth in 2012 Fall FTE enrollment behind Liberty (72,904), NYU (44,516), Western Governors (40,320), USC (39,958), and Excelsior (34,563) with BYU reporting 34,409. That's FTE so the story might change if we could look at headcount (which I don't see immediately available but I'm not spending any more time looking) but I'd be very surprised if that changed things much since BYU appears to have mostly full-time students.
That you've found one source that has an obviously incorrect statement doesn't mean that we have to repeat that incorrect statement. In fact, it raises questions about the reliability of that source if it can get such a basic fact so obviously wrong. (In fairness, the statement is probably meant to focus only on not-for-profit institutions and it may also be intended to focus on headcount enrollment at a single, physical campus. But that leads us back to the point above that if we continue to make increasingly narrow parameters we can certainly find some list of universities where BYU comes out on or near the top but such a list may not be useful or meaningful if it's especially narrow or convoluted.)
Will you now please remove the obviously incorrect statement from this article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the abundance of evidence that this claim is incorrect, that another editor has agreed (at WP:RSN) that the cited source doesn't appear to be very reliable, and ARTEST4ECHO's lack of response, I've removed the problematic claim from the article. Please find a more reliable source if you plan to restore this information.

I also removed the claim about BYU being the largest religious university in the U.S. Liberty University enrolls over twice as many students so this claim is also wildly inaccurate. ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

marriage average isn't updated and probably wrong[edit]

1)It doesn't make much sense that the women's national marriage average is 27 and the men average is 25, That should be double checked.

2) aside of that it is unclear if the national maiden age is talking about the US or just Utah. It is also not mentioned when this servery was done. The average probably changes all the time, so you should put the date this research was done.

3) There are plenty of different respectable sources that give different ages and I'm not sure Wikipedia has the right facts.

please take care of this issue. thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Inscape (journal) to Brigham Young University[edit]

Inscape (journal) has been tagged for notability for over six years and is likely to be deleted. However, it could be potentially useful as a merge and redirect. Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)