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."

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.

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.


Fixed a few minor misspelled words.

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. (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)

I agree about being the oldest university. I believe it is the second oldest . Nitaricke (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Title IX scandal[edit]

Particular scandals in the history of a school do not warrant their own section. This was already established with the basketball scandal. No other university has a list of all the scandals ever to take hold of the university. It has no place and is inconsistent with other university's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan24 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Other articles do indeed provide details about major scandals in dedicated sections with the best example being Pennsylvania State University. Regardless of what other article have or do not have, this was a major event in the history of the university that culminated in the termination of the university's chancellor and president. Completely omitting this series of events from this article is completely unacceptable and utterly out of line with our core policies and practices.
In any case, stop edit warring. ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The only case is Pennsylvania State University. Schools such as University of Louisville, University of Tennessee, which all have similar scandals have no such article dedicated to them. The status quo was that particular scandals are not included as such was established in the basketball scandal which is extremely similar. I am keeping the page consistent with the practices that have been established and the article will not be allowed until a legitimate argument can be made to break the standard practices established with this page. You can't have one without the other and the other was deemed to not be necessary. This is in no way comparable to the Penn State scandal and will not be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan24 (talkcontribs) 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Once again, if there have been similar historical incidents at other colleges and universities then it may also be appropriate for editors to add sections to those articles, too. In any case, a previous discussion that occurred over six years ago on a different topic and among only a handful of editors by no means establishes a long-term, wide scale consensus. Multiple editors contributed material to this section in de facto agreement that the section should be in the article (albeit expanded, improved, and updated - hence their edits).
In any case, you're continuing to edit war over this and that is unacceptable no matter your rationale or argument. Continue and you'll surely be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You do not get to override the consensus already established. You are outnumbered and the article will be removed. The basketball scandal led to removal of the president and coaches, this is exactly the same thing. Those handful of editors vastly outnumber you and therefore the consensus is established. De facto agreement is not present because you're the only one talking here. Consider this your warning for edit warring and overriding the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan24 (talkcontribs) 07:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo... this needs to stay. It's significant enough to be listed here. I've been editing university/college articles and have seen many controversy sections, so don't say they aren't out there. You need to get a new consensus. Cardinalfan24, if you continue, I'll report you as well. Corkythehornetfan 07:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is where the consensus has been established already as regard to controversies. As well as here. You have no authority to override the established standards set for this wiki page. Looking here you will find that no university has a article dedicated to scandals that led to the resignation of the schools president. It is inconsistent and inappropriate to include this one. If anything the article should be posted to the Baylor football page just as how the Basketball scandal was addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan24 (talkcontribs) 07:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I read both of them before I commented the first time. Those conversations took place seven and ten years ago. It changes over time and needs to be rediscussed. Corkythehornetfan 08:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about that Washington Post article! Those all sound like events that should be mentioned in articles if they're not already. ElKevbo (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I would not remove it, as it is a know fact. But something that is happening here and now certainly does not need an overly prominent place in the history section. The Banner talk 18:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
A few sentences about the university board of trustees firing the president isn't overly prominent by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, placing this material in its own special, dedicated section gives it prominence. ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the place at the end of the article gives it less prominence than highly visible at the beginning of the article. Not everyone will scroll that far down. The Banner talk 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are you so focused on placing this at the bottom of the article so many readers won't see it? (I also reject the claim that a paragraph at the end of that section is "highly visible" when it's certainly below the fold for virtually all readers.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And please be sure to return to the original question: Why do you believe that this isn't part of the university's history? There's already a dedicated subsection in that larger section specifically focused on the university presidents so why doesn't a paragraph about nationally-known events the led to the firing of a president belong there? Yes, I understand that it's ongoing and there are likely further developments but that's no reason to segregate the information to its own weird section. That, in fact, could easily be construed as WP:NPOV and placing undue weight on it. ElKevbo (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I notice that one source is date 10 june 2016. So, history? The Banner talk 21:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
As a third party, I'm in agreement with ElKevbo that this is a significant enough event that it deserves at least a paragraph in the history section. At any university, a scandal that results in the removal of a president, athletic director, and football coach (often the three highest paid folks, I imagine), is a major event. It is significant history and deserves to go there. There is not reason to hide it at the bottom, nor is there reason for it to have a unique section. (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe the article is in a good place now and should be left as such. It is history. I will be adding more to the history article as there seems to be a jarring gap between 1964 and 2016 Cardinalfan24 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday (see Google news) is not history. The lawsuits are now. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)