Talk:Brigham Young University/Archive 1

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


It seems to be time for someone to make a BYU Cougars page just for athletics. The football section on this page was once just the natl champ and Heisman, but it is getting rather large. Many schools have a separate page for athletics. JefeDeJefes 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — John 16:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this correct: "Though they lost both of their games against BCS competition, the two losses were close."? Didn't they beat #17 TCU by a lot? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the sentence.

TCU is not BCS competition. They lost to Arizona and BC - they only two regular season BCS conference opponents on their schedule.JefeDeJefes 16:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Heritage Halls

I added an article for Heritage Halls. Perhaps others could go further in adding articles for the others? jj 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


We now have three mottos listed as BYU's motto. Seems odd to have three mottos, doesn't it? There are no citations. Elder Henry B. Eyring seems to think BYU's motto is, "Enter to learn. Go forth to serve." So how about we figure out what the real motto is? Or are there really three??? --tortdog 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like one motto was removed. Apparently your same question was asked on the 100-hour board a couple of months ago with the following reply: "It turns out that "Enter to Learn, Go Forth to Serve" is BYU's official motto, while "The World Is Our Campus" is BYU's slogan." The person replying wasn't clear on the difference between motto and slogan, nor am I. Hope this helps, though. Alanraywiki 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Hey I was wondering if anyone knew how to figure out what textbooks you need for your classes without visiting the bookstore. I am currently in California and will not get to BYU until just a few days before classes start. I would prefer to buy my books on the internet, if possible, but I can't figure out what books I need. Is there a way on BYU's website? Thanks for any help.

Go to the bookstore's Web site.  Either run a search or go to BYU's Web site and click through the links til you find the bookstore's page.  They have a feature that you can use to select a class and then it shows the books the instructor is both requiring and suggesting.  You can even order your books from the bookstore, but I'd recommend finding out which books you need, writing down the titles, authors, and ISBNs, and then using a service such as Campusi to find the cheapest books available (usu. used books are cheaper, but you can often find deals on the Internet — I once had a brand new economics text shipped to me from Britain for cheaper than buying it used from the bookstore).  Hope that helps, and if you've got other questions, e-mail me, and I'll try to help. — John 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That is so not cool! It won't let you look at the classes until one week before they start. They say it's because they might change, but in that case I think they'd just have a disclaimer. I think they just want you to buy your books at the bookstore. ERRR... a monopoly... even at BYU. It lets you browse books for classes, but it won't let you go before spring semester, so I can't find what book I need for my class, because they didn't offer it then. I'm frustrated.
Yeah, bookstores are monopolies anywhere.  Another thing you can do is look for the class's Web page.  The professors or their TAs usually post the syllabus, which includes text information.  Another thing I often did was e-mail or call my professors and ask which books they'll be wanting us to get.  95% of them replied and were happy to help.  I'd try that if I were you. — John 10:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Or just email the professor. Some never check their school email, but many will email the texbook information.

Vandalism additions

I agree with Frecklefoot that edits are more like vandalism than contributions. However, as good wikipedians we may be obliged to incorporate attitudes about BYU including negative ones. The comment about "waxing the Levi surfboard" was amusing...reminds me of the stories of BYU students who would go to Vegas to get married solely for the purpose of sex and then immediately seek divorce or annulment. B 20:46, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

My wife attended BYU—but I never heard that one! It is funny—I'll have to ask her about that. As far as the revert goes, I did see some valuable information in some of the edits, but they were interspersed with vandalism so I just reverted all the changes rather than pick and fold in the valuable contributions. If someone else wants to do it—just the NPOV stuff please—feel free. —Frecklefoot 20:54, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've got no problem with someone responsibly NPOV'g either, but likening BYU to Nazi Germany? Who has the time or energy to pick and fold that sort of trash? I'm with you on this Frecklefoot: If someone else... The term I used to hear when I was at BYU was "Levi loving". B 03:55, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)


Any images add to the articles, so I was glad to see the addition of some images of the campus. But, and this is just an opinion, I think the images would beautify the article more if they were interspersed with the text, such as the images in the Rachel Corrie article are. —Frecklefoot 21:03, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Be my guest. I couldn't figure out how to get it to look right. Lunkwill 00:39, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay. How do you like it? —Frecklefoot 14:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks great! Lunkwill 19:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The BYU logo that was originally in the sidebar has gone missing. I have commented out the HTML tag ofr it to make the page look nicer until it is found again. --Jarsyl 08:23, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

IMHO, the picture at the beginning of the article and the picture under the Campus section appear too similar to both be included on the page. Any objections to changing it or suggestions on which picture should be changed (and to what other picture) would be greatly appreciated!--Firefeather 01:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant to have said there: "Any objections to changing it? If not, suggestions on which picture shold be changed (and to what other picture) would be greatly appreciated!" Sorry about the confusion. Firefeather 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BYU Culture

I've renamed "Marriage and stereotypes" to "BYU Culture" and removed discussion of pejoratives. A laundry list of name-calling doesn't really belong in a neutral article unless it contributes to understanding of the topic in some way. In this case, the disparaging terms were colloquial and not generally known. I do think it is valuable to discuss the "unique" social and cultural atmosphere at BYU, but the focus of that discussion seemed to be a list of names used by detractors -- if someone wants to revise to include a more balanced discussion of BYU culture (including, perhaps, well-known pejoratives in a non-sophomoric way), that would seem appropriate. - July 17, 2004, just because they are not known to you does not mean they are "not generally known" and whether it is well known or not isn't really relevant. You can't censor info (even if it is a laundry list of perjoratives by detractors) just because you don't like it so long as it is presented in a NPOV...which it is. A primary contribution of this info is the way that many outsiders as well as some insiders perceive BYU. Balanced? For as large as the article is, this mild criticism hardly outweighs the positive reflection of BYU in the article. Thoughtful people will see the name-calling for what it is. B|Talk 01:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd have to agree that the terms are not very common, and I've been at and around BYU for almost 10 years. I had never even heard "Breed 'em Young", in fact. Google shows two pages of results (including 2 'pedia results), mostly from anti-mormon sites for '"Breed 'em young" byu"'. I think it's inappropriate to accuse .178 of censorship when he went out of his way to describe why he did it. He even invited you to balance the paragraph out. You also had the opportunity when they were anonymously deleted the first time, after you put them in as the /second paragraph of the article/, and then again when they were deleted by someone else. I tried to make your original commentary more NPOV when I moved it away from the top, but never felt like I fully succeeded at justifying it. I'll try once more to make it NPOV, but I'm annoyed at this point that you've never tried to do so yourself. Lunkwill 03:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lunkwill, READ my comments: "whether it is well known [by certain people] or not isn't really relevant". Just because YOU haven't heard it doesn't mean it isn't common...that merely indicates the breadth of the sort of social circles you associate with. Nor is a google search the arbiter of commonality. Deletion of relevant material is censorship, period...especially when poor reasons are given for deletion. I'm annoyed with you for holding me responsible for edits that you or .178 want. Quitchurbitchin and DO IT YOURSELF if want it edited a certain way! Your last edits, while generally good writing, show that you don't fully understand wikipedia's NPOV policy. For example, as a general rule, direct statements using adjectives more often than not violate NPOV such as: "quite low"; "vitriolic opinions"; and "Ironically". NPOV more than anything is about presentation and actually less about content; it's about not taking a stance. Stating that "some people call BYU, Breed 'em Young U" accords well with NPOV -- IT IS A FACT (no matter how childish, pejorative, uncommon and offensive it is), it is relevant and it doesn't disparage or encourage the doesn't even describe it as "name-calling". B|Talk 01:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let me just respond to this: This doesn't really have as much to do with NPOV at it has to do with relevance. For example, if this were an article about "ants," wouldn't you agree that the relavance of a paragraph about how people in two provinces in Uruguay in the late 1970s liked to refer to ants as "hippie communists bugs" because of how they worked together and "my cute little cuddlebugs" because they liked to pour ants over their heads before going to sleep is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on the topic? The facts may be true. They may be interesting to the four people that did this. They may even be interesting or humorous to you. But it isn't relevant to the general audience. That's what I meant when I said, "name-calling doesn't really belong in a neutral article UNLESS IT CONTRIBUTES TO UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOPIC IN SOME WAY." If you want to make a case for "B-Y-Zoo," "Zoobies," etc., go ahead. Make your case. The paragraph that is currently there makes a very poor case, and you don't seem to be convincing anyone in this forum either. It should be removed or seriously revised. If you don't want to do the revision, that's fine, but don't just cut and paste old versions back in when it keeps getting deleted by other contributors because they see the same thing I do: irrelevant and immaturely stated material. --
BoNoMoJo, I am generally familiar with both BYU and perspectives about BYU in Utah, having grown up in the northern part of the state before moving to the east coast. I am not trying to censor anything, but I absolutely still argue that most of the pejoratives you list are 1) colloquial (and even in Utah, generally unknown), 2) outmoded -- I haven't heard anyone say "Breed 'em Young" in 15 years, and 3) contribute little to the article, regardless of being critical or positive about BYU. I **do** think that the article needs to expose BYU's 'seedy underbelly' (whatever that might be) and I certainly agree that discussion of social norms like age of marriage and the cult-of-return-missionary should be discussed. I just think that in its present form, the discussion is extremely, well, junior-high. It still needs serious revision. I'll take this on myself when I get a chance. If you want to beat me to it, be my guest. --
Irrelevant: colloquial and outmoded. Wrong: contributes little. As stated above it reflects a significant if not widely-held opinion about BYU...THAT IS relevant. B|Talk 01:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
BoNoMoJo, how are we going to resolve this? These names do not reflect a "significant if not widely-held opinion about BYU" -- what does that even mean, "significant if not widely-held opinion?" For an opinion to be "significant," doesn't it have to be at least more than very marginally held? This definition at wordnet certainly seems to indicate as much: . You might also want to take a look at "insignificant." Look, my argument here is that, yes, there may be some small number of people in the state of Utah who have heard these terms at some point in their lives, but unless that small group of people is "significant" (it isn't), or if their opinions are somehow more significant than those of the rest of the readership of wikipedia (they aren't), or if the intended audience for the article consisted significantly of these people (it doesn't), then they simply don't belong as a "significant" part of the article. And, BTW, I'm betting that most of those people in Utah that have heard these terms heard them while attending the University of Utah; perhaps this paragraph would be more relevant if moved to that article. --
Just to be sure, I didn't mean that a nickname or opinion was not widely held. None of us contributors could say with fair certainty how widely held these are....and isn't it a bit pedagogic to be offering definitions of "significant" and "insignificant"? Whatever. Don't trouble yourself too much with me 24...I just like to see that certain content gets discussed more thoroughly sometimes...maybe it's the philosopher in me or maybe it's the lawyer in me...I don't know, but for now I've contributed and discuseed as much as I care to on that section. BTW, I first came across the "Breed 'Em Young University" when I was a sophmore at BYU in the early 90s when I read it in a unofficial BYU student rag, the Student Review. I can't think of a time I ever heard it in my three years at the U of U... oh yea, 24., are you in New Jersey? Just curious. B|Talk 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let me contribute my $.02. First off, BoNoMoJo has made significant contributions to many LDS topics here on the 'pedia--he is not a vandal or anti-Mormon. Second, I've never attended BYU, but I've heard all the nicknames and "perjoratives" levied against it. I think they are relevant. They are in the Mormon pop-culture and they're funny. Since they are so popular in the Mormon culture (despite not in American pop-culture), I think they deserve mention in the article. Lastly, I've heard the BY-Zoo and "Zoobies" references before, but the article gives a poor description of why BYU is Zoo-ish: what does marrying young have to do with a zoo? There, I'm done. Peace. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 14:41, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
I can't remember the origin of B-Y-Zoo. I did call our local Wal-mart in Irving (when we lived there) "the Zoo" running up and down the aisle, stealing in plain view...just about got ran over by some boy on a bike there. Makes me think about those surreal moments when class would let out at the Y and the sidewalks would fill with people like a heard of cattle...sometimes silent as death only to be occassionaly broken up with laughter because some joker started bleating, "moooo, mooooo!" B|Talk 03:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think they are amusing too, but another of my mixed motives for seeing this sort of material in there is to show how mean-spirited some of the unflattering presumptions of prejudicial people can be against the Y...really what other university incurs such extreme opinions? I think it reflects more poorly on such persons than is a cut against the Y. B|Talk 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll put in a couple of pennys here, too. First off, having had some limited interactions with BoNoMoJo in the past and having read many articles that he has authored or edited, I agree that he has made some very important contributions and is one of the most valuable members of the wikipedia community, especially on LDS topics -- but I disagree with the implication that this fact makes his opinion somehow more relevant to this topic than Lunkwill's or .178's (isn't this type of reputation-preference anathema to the wiki concept in general?). Secondly, if I had to vote right now, I'd vote for keeping discussion of nicknames, but reducing the number listed, removing especially those which have slipped out of usage and which are otherwise obscure or confusing (such as those you mention). The language of the paragraph indicates that some of the statements are more the author's perception of perceptions about BYU, rather than perceptions themselves (e.g., what is the basis for "some of the most vitriolic opinions about BYU are held by LDS students at colleges elsewhere in the US?" Is this based in some fact from a survey? Or is it personal perception/opinion?). But I agree with keeping the discussion in with a few examples of common pejorative nicknames -- in my mind, the discussion of the sometimes weird social atmosphere at BYU is important and relevant, as is discussion of opinions of Utahns and members of the LDS church. Lastly, I think that the discussion in its current form is backwards; it seems to want to discuss the nicknames and includes the reasons for those nicknames only in support of their inclusion in the article. Instead, the paragraph should outline the social oddities at BYU and how BYU is perceived by Utahns, Mormons, and non-Mormons, including nicknames to illustrate those oddities. Hmmm. Perhaps I'll take a shot at this revision. Any objections? — LennyG
None from me. B|Talk 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Go for it, LennyG. One thing, however. I just wanted to point out that BoNoMoJo is a long-time respected contributor to the 'pedia and not just some bored college kid looking to stir up some dirt. Of course everyone's input is welcome and appreciated, but the conversation seemed to start turning BoNoMoJo into some sort of rabble-rouser, which he isn't... that is all. Peace. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 15:21, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
These are widely-used pejoratives. I think some are indispensable. For example, "Zoobies" deserve note because to outsiders it's not entirely obvious that the term refers to BYU students, yet the term is commonly used. (At least at the U!) These pejoratives shouldn't be included merely because BoNoMoJo is an outstanding contributor (which he is), but because they're in use, factual, and in context of broader cultural arguments about BYU. Incidentally, why is the U article crap compared to this? I sense some school pride-expansions coming on. CHL 06:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think someone might have misunderstood the "marriage statistics" thing ("'successful' marriage statistics.") To quote from the site it references (look about 2/3 of the way down the list): "Marriage Statistics: 53.4% of the individuals in the graduating class were married. 59.1% of the males and 47.4% of the females were married." "Were married" is not being used here as a verb, as if they had gotten married that school year. It doesn't say they found their mate at BYU (I knew married people that transferred in, for example). I don't think that people look to that site as evidence of a successful marriage statistic put out by BYU. Certainly marriage is in the air, but it isn't forced down your throat--not by the school anyway. Sometimes my parents tried to force it down my throat, and maybe there's some peer pressure, but it isn't the school doing it.

Famous alumni

I added this new section. I only knew of two so anyone who is more knowledgeable, please add. Mike H 19:12, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

The "What links here" button is a good resource for these. I added a few as well as what they are famous for. I got bored of adding them, though, so you can go back there and add any more you think are worthy. Peace. Frecklefoot | Talk 21:35, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
I am thinking it'd be a good idea to break the notable alumni section down according to (loosely) what they're famous for (see the UNLV article).  I'll do this soon unless there's other ideas. — John 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I took a stab at it. My spelling might be bad, and I didn't know if I should link the headings. Also, I'm not really consistant in the use of the headings (NFL, NBA, "Baseball")
It was a great start.  I took the liberty of changing a few things to make it a little more consistent, but your start really helped.
John 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Soben Huon

Maybe I'm totally off-base here, but I took a look at Ms. Huon's article, and I just wasn't sure what to think since it kind of looked like a promotional page.  When I looked at the reason her copyrighted photo was "fair use," I knew I was right on about promotion, which is not a Wikipedia goal.  The uploader's notes include the following: "Fair use applies as this image is used for promotional purpose (promoting the Miss USA delegate pictured (Soben Huon))." John 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You said it???!!! Lol I created that article and since I live on the other side of the world from Utah and have no connection to Huon I can't exactly see how I am promoting her? If the prose isn't exactly stellar its more because I was lazy and practically templated all of the delegates (and considering that each of the fifty-one will eventually have their own article I again fail to see how Huon is promoted). As for the fair use tag - I'd had some problems with images and it was suggested to me that this was my best bet to keep my uploaded images on wikipedia... the image itself is actually used by the Miss Utah USA organisation to promote Huon but that doesn't actually mean I am promoting her by creating an article. As for notability - Apart from the honour of winning the Miss Utah USA title itself, sher appearance at Miss USA will be nationally televised live. Also, more minorly, Huon is the first Cambodian to compete at the national pageant. Besides this, many former Miss USA delegates have gone on to bigger and brighter things (see Category:Miss USA delegates. Who knows where Huon will end up eventually?! For these reasons I have put Huon back on the list - but get back to me if you disagree. CarlyPalmer 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up what promotion means in that image file.  In theory, there's no way to really prove you're not Soben Huon (I know you're not) and you didn't just want a "Hey, World!" page, but that's usually what people here mean when they talk about promotion.  Anyway, I'm wary of keeping her name in there since she has yet to "[go] on to bigger and brighter things." If anyone who wins a state-level beauty/scholarship contest is considered famous alumni, the list will soon be ridiculously long.  So, you're for it, I'm against it, and since that's not a consensus of any kind, we'll leave it alone until others weigh in with their opinions.
John 01:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough :) I agree in part with the comment "If anyone who wins a state-level beauty/scholarship contest is considered famous alumni, the list will soon be ridiculously long" -> but I guess the point is that Miss America and Miss USA are the beauty pageants in terms of notability... but as you said there's no consensus as yet and we'll just leave it be :) CarlyPalmer 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Really good intramural basketball player?

Under "Notable Alumni" section, "Sports/Basketball" subsection, one Brent Andrus was listed as a "really good intramural basketball player". I'm assuming that this is unnecessary and a possible case of vandalism/self-promoting joke. I couldn't find any substantial references to Brent Andrus on the internet, certainly none that would lead me to believe that he is a notable alumni of BYU. Plus, since when is being a good intramural basketball player cause for labeling oneself as famous? If there is reasonable cause to have Mr. Andrus in there, put it back. But for now I'm removing the line. - Doxster 06:06 08 April 2006

I think that's what happened was that no one noticed it.  Obviously, it's promotion, but the BYU page is large and there are many topics and the page changes often (including the occasional vandal).  You're right on for removing it.  Thanks! — John 17:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Should we move the Notable Alumni to a new, separate Wikipedia entry?JackWilliams 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I should say yes. Bo-Lingua 03:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I, too, would be for this. — John 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I did it. JackWilliams 08:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do they marry so young?

The article in its present state gives a poor explanation of why students get married so young. The Church putting a high emphasis on family and marriage is only a minor reason. I think--at least this was true with me and most friends--most LDS members get married young because they can't have sexual relations outside of marriage. To be blunt: they're horny. This should be stated more eloquently in the article, but I don't have time to do it myself right now. Anyone else want to give it a shot? Frecklefoot | Talk 14:33, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, as true and relevant as it is, I dare you to state in the article that "many BYU students who marry earlier do so because they are horny!" It wouldn't last one day. Not to mention shorter engagements and sometimes a marriage drawn together more because of sexual attraction than long-lasting compatibility. B|Talk 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think its important to note that the Church wouldn't disagree with this, they would just put it differently, i.e. strong sexual desires in young people are part of the plan of our Heavenly Father to encourage marriage and procreation. Students at BYU use these feelings more in accordance with this doctrine than students at a secular university, some because of deeply held beliefs of their own and others on fear of being disciplined by the university.Dayleyj (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some way it can be worded to not step on other's feelings? Stating that the only reason they get married early is because the Church emphasises families just doesn't give the whole picture. Frecklefoot | Talk 15:29, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you Frecklefoot...I just meant to say that wikipedians wouldn't let stand any phrase of the sort that "unmarried BYU students are horny" even if it is the truth. B|Talk 16:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a way it could be stated NPOV, but I think backing up the statement that horniness is why they marry young would be harder. Sure, zoobies are plenty horny, but is that really why they get married? Aren't there plenty of people at other schools who also get married for shallow reasons? Are BYU students hornier than people at other schools? How do you even quantify such a thing? If you measured it in terms of sexual /activity/, BYU would rank quite low, since relatively few even go all the way. Also consider that the church deprecates lasciviousness -- zoobies tend to be almost apologetic even admitting the part sexual desire plays in their dating (contrast other schools...), so you'd have to show that they're getting married young because of sex *despite* their stated reasons. I really would be interested to know what the reasons are, and I've often theorized that sexual repression has something to do with it, but I don't think it really explains the whole marriage culture by itself. Lunkwill 16:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As a current BYU student, I agree with the above statement by Lunkwill. I think the huge emphasis placed on getting married and the marriage being one of the main reasons many go to BYU (myself included) play bigger parts in the young marriage age.Epachamo 03:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, BYU students (and probably Mormons in general) get married to have sex, as opposed to other people who marry, despite the fact that they are already having sex (in general, not all people go all the way before marriage). Perhaps this is a topic for Mormonism in general and not BYU specifically? I just wanted to mention it in this article because marriage age was already mentioned. So, no, I don't think BYU students are any more hornier than other college-aged students, but they are horny and... um... aren't "getting any" until they marry. So, they marry. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 16:56, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
I view this as an over-simplification. In the church there are several cultural and familial benefits to getting married–married to an active Mormon in particular. Callings tend to go to married couples, and older singles are often relegated to singles ward meat markets, isolated from "grown up" wards. Some Mormons furthermore have a strong desire to have children independent from sex. Indeed, I can personally attest that some young Mormon women are averse to sex except for the fact it'll be their sole source of offspring.
BYU is famous for being a place where Mormons (especially those from LDS-impoverished areas) go to get married. It's true that sex is a carrot, but there are plenty of others, not to mention parents with sticks wanting their daughter to marry "a nice Mormon boy." I think this is a trait more evident at BYU then elsewhere in Mormondom. CHL 07:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let me address your points one by one (I am not trying to start a flame war, just engage in a discussion):
Callings tend to go to married couples
I don't agree with this. I've had dozens of callings over the years and in only one did I serve with my wife. Besides, why is getting a calling such a good thing? I'd love to be able just attend meetings and not have to do other work. ;-)

I also disagree. Singles at BYU go to singles wards, where in fact, ALL the callings outside the bishopric and one supervisory clerk are held entirely by single adults. Epachamo 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

older singles are often relegated to singles ward meat markets
What is so bad about that? If you're single, you probably want to meet other singles (to get married), so it's preferable to be in a singles ward if you're single. Being in a family ward would be a bummer--there'd be few, if any, dating oppurtunities within one. Singles wards are a great boon to singles, though I probably wouldn't refer to them as "meat markets." I met my wife via a Single's Ward, BTW, so this probably influences my opinion. And, "older singles" (I think the cut-off is 30 or 32) are required to go to family wards and are barred from the singles wards (I guess if you're not married by the time you're 30, you're hopeless :-S).
Some Mormons furthermore have a strong desire to have children independent from sex. Indeed, I can personally attest that some young Mormon women are averse to sex except for the fact it'll be their sole source of offspring.
I guess this is true. Luckily is was not true in me and my wife's case.
I still think a big reason they get married is to engage in the "S" word--not out of a desire to start an eternal family. But I'm not going to hound the issue. Frecklefoot | Talk 19:11, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

>> Interesting discussion, but I think no one here has answered the query for the missing factor in young marriage. What that factor must be is this: belief in "personal revelation".

The Church teaches as one of its core beliefs that everyone can, and even is obligated to, seek and receive personal revelation to guide all their important decision-making. That is combined with the belief that no single decision (aside from deciding to live the gospel) is as important as whom to marry (for all eternity). While these doctrinal factors are potentially present throughout LDS society, it has undoubtedly been distilled into uniquely potent form by BYU's peculiar culture and its sheer concentrated mass of singles, who are both externally and self-selected from among the wider LDS college-agers for their tendencies toward greater faith. I would doubt anyone's claim to have attended BYU if they could not call to mind countless stories of people they know who had pronounced having had a personal revelation confirming a love interest as their divinely intended (or at least divinely approved) eternal companion - and often, within months, or not uncommonly, even mere weeks, after first dating or first meeting.

I cannot even count how many examples I encountered of this, to the point that it became par for the course and unremarkable. Nor is this exclusive of the other reasons considered above; though I'm sure most of these BYU students earnestly believe in their divine promptings to marry, it may also be at least viscerally convenient that it clears away uncertainty and opens the way for marriage (and sex) sooner rather than later. It is so common on campus that many times I heard the bishop have to remind the congregation of the singles ward that doctrine does not indicate that a single woman should feel obliged to marry a boyfriend who pronounces to her that he has received a revelation that they should marry. One friend of mine literally went from first meeting a girl to being engaged with her in 36 days, with marriage following three months later, driven (at least in part) by an impression of divine assurances in response to asking God in prayer if she is the one. And those BYU veterans among the readers here know even that is not unusual.

And this tendency is only reinforced by church leaders teaching that putting off marriage is selfish and prolongs the possibilities for the sins of premarital hanky-panky.

The sad thing is that I've also been out of school long enough to see some of these BYU-originating "personal revelation" shotgun marriages end in unhappiness and divorce, due in large part to glaring incompatibilities that would have become readily apparent to any couple with the good sense to wait at least a year or so before getting married (perish the thought!). This all might give a little mental indigestion to zealous believers, but those are the plain facts as I see them from many years of widespread, up-close observation.

- Reaverdrop 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, this might be a hard concept for some people to grasp, but I guarantee it is possible to have motivation other than sex for things such as marriage. I'm sure you're all aware that marriage ages have varied greatly throughout the ages in different cultures. Rarely do you hear people give horniness as the reason for Latino women getting married young (average age between 14 and 16) or lack of libido as a reason for men in some cultures to get married after 35. People just say that that's the culture and they leave it at that. When everyone else is getting married at a certain age, it's very easy for an individual or a couple to decide to also get married at that age. I'm getting married in May and I can honestly say that it's not because I want to "get some." Yes, I am a virgin and I am a BYU student. I don't doubt that you won't believe me when I say that I'm in control of my sex urges, but that's probably why you don't understand Mormons--because you don't try to and you don't believe them. I'm getting married because I love my fiancee and because I feel like it's time to start a family. It's more than just sex--it's about helping and serving each other, and raising children so that as a family we can all return to Heaven. --Gandalf 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf has put it very well.  I understand completely what he said because that was my situation, too.  Like him, I know most of you won't believe it, but it is true.
John 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Article still being somewhat outshined

I thought this article was shaping up well, but if BYU is going to live up to its self-proclaimed reputation—at least self-proclaimed by some—as the Harvard of the West, its article should at least look as good as it supposed rival. Check out Harvard University and Yale University. B|Talk 18:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the pictures of their campuses are nicer since they focus on just a few buildings instead of the whole campus and they have more alumni. They also have the vital stats of their school in a nice table. But they both a coat of arms, but BYU doesn't have one, so we can't use the same template. Should we just put in BYU's logo in place of a coat of arms? Frecklefoot | Talk 18:58, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Zoobie" Etymology

Commented out from the main article in re "B-Y-Zoo" & "Zoobie."

[can someone research the origins of these terms and how they relate to BYU Culture? Is BYU zoo-like because the students are "animals?" Because they smell? Because of similarity to the reproductive characteristics of zoo animals? Because it is fun to tour campus and throw peanuts at the captives?]

Cool Hand Luke 03:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zoobie was actually a busker in Boulder Colorado 25 years ago that took his name from jazz lyrics (zoobie doobie doo). The Rainbow family picked up the name and spread it across America and evidently the world. To my knowledge, there's only been one actual Zoobie.

I dug out an old book I have published in 1980 called "Zoobie or Not Zoobie?" by Robert Gloat. In the foreward is states "The word was derived from the phrase BY Zoo . . . the original connotation referred to the wide variety of students attending the school." I'm not sure how true that is, but it sounds as plausible as anything else. Alanraywiki 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

One non-BYU Mormon's opinion

I have to say that this is a fairly decent article, but the culture section clearly needed improvement. Like so many things related to the LDS Church, perhaps an objective opinion about BYU's culture is impossible, but I'd like to think that I tried to strike a bit of a balance. (Granted, "objective" and "balanced" are two completely different things, but the latter is an adequate substitute in the case of the impossibility of the former.)

As far as the "they're just horny" comments go, I'd just like to point out that premarital sex is hardly uncommon among even active Latter-Day Saints. LDS girls' round-heeled reputation is well-known (as is their widespread embrace of "technical virginity"), and I have known a number of young men who have engaged in sexual relations twelve hours before leaving for the MTC. Quite frankly, it may well be that the Honor Code--violation of which can result in the negation of all academic credits earned in the student's BYU career, in addition to expulsion--is the only thing forcing a lot of these kids into marriage. A lot of them just go and have sex anyway, especially the RMs who feel that after two years serving The Lord, it's time to serve "The Captain."

--Slightlyslack 05:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to question the statements in your second paragraph. Speaking as a life-long member of the Church, I'd have to say that your observations are in the minority. While the "round-heeled" reputation of LDS girls may be true in certain geographic areas (e.g. secluded regions of Idaho, Utah), I'd have to say Mormon girls (and Mormon males) are generally regarded as being sexually wholesome. While I don't doubt many BYU students break the Honor Code without reporting it, I doubt that most students do since for the most part they've been brought up in LDS homes.
As for jumping out of the sack just before rushing off to the MTC, I have to doubt this as well. I had about 20 companions on my 2-year mission and only one had ever engaged in sex. And this was because he was a convert. He said that he went without sex for a year before his mission, testing himself to see if he could. When he saw that he could, he went on his mission.
Lastly, I'm an RM and never had any inclination to engage in extra-marital sex after my mission. Sure, I wanted to (temptation and all), but I never did. The only reason was I knew it was wrong. Heck, I just got back from 2 years of telling people why it was wrong! Not all RMs remain morally clean, but I'd doubt that most fling their morality aside once they return home. Most have strong testimonies once returning and are less inclined to break their covenants than they were before their missions.
Of course, all of this is conjecture (and observations). Data on this type of activity would be impossible to gather (even if it were possible, their's no way to test the validity of it). I just wanted to convey my observations as a life-long member.
As for my previous "horny" statements, perhaps better wording would have been "bottled." Despite being morally clean, these girls have grown up in cultures where sex is glorified; it's just natural they're eager to try it. :-) Peace. Frecklefoot | Talk 17:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
You obviously have much more faith in the righteousness of the LDS community than I do. I remember hearing from a General Authority at one stake conference (I'll be damned if I can remember who it was) that as many as 50% of RMs go inactive at some point in their twenties. My mother, who converted while residing in the Calumet Region of northwest Indiana and then moved to Provo to be a "good Mormon" (it has been a continual source of amazement and frustration for me that so many Midwestern Mormons buy into the Happy Valley doctrine that they can't be full-fledged Saints without a Utah mailing address), vividly remembers seeing the missionary who baptized her at a Greek culture festival in Salt Lake; he was visibly intoxicated and had an equally drunken floozy hanging off his arm. Maybe an outlying case, but I've heard dozens of similar tales from Utah expatriates who left the state because of their frustration with the hypocrisy of so much of the LDS community there.
Perhaps I should have prefaced my denigratory comments with the clause, "in heavily LDS areas." The lack of social pressure to be active in most of the country means that, after a few years away from the mothership (let alone a generation or two), only the people who have really firm testimonies of LDS teachings bother to live a Church-standards lifestyle; the rest, as the rolls of any congregation in the Midwest will confirm, simply go inactive. --Slightlyslack 23:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, this isn't really supposed to be a debate forum, BUT since it's under way...
Allow me to quote you for clarity:
You obviously have much more faith in the righteousness of the LDS community than I do.
Well, I am LDS. Shouldn't I have faith in the LDS? :-)
I remember hearing from a General Authority at one stake conference... that as many as 50% of RMs go inactive at some point in their twenties.
Oh, I don't doubt this at all and have witnessed it. Many RMs just lose interest (for whatever reasons) in the Church after returning. I don't know the cause (since it didn't happen to me), but I doubt the mission itself had anything to do with it. I think the missionaries just return home to their old friends who may lead that back into bad habits. From there it's all downhill.
My mother, who converted while residing in the Calumet Region of northwest Indiana and then moved to Provo to be a "good Mormon"
I lived in the Provo area (Pleasant Grove, to be specific) and I don't get this. I didn't feel any more faithful while in Utah than I did elsewhere. In fact, I found the overly-LDS atmosphere a bit bothersome (some native Utahns revel in it). You can be a good Mormon wherever you live, but I guess some people like living in a LDS-saturated area.
I've heard dozens of similar tales from Utah expatriates who left the state because of their frustration with the hypocrisy of so much of the LDS community there.
Well, I moved away from Utah for a job. I think there may be more hypocrisy there (that is, many Mormons, but lots of immorality) because it is so heavily LDS. It goes something like this: when children become teens, they want to stand out. If one is LDS in a non-LDS area, such as California, this is easy. You are LDS and people are watching you. You stand out because you are LDS. Since you know people are watching you, you try to uphold LDS values so you continue to stand out. In places like Utah, however, most people are LDS. A good way to stand out, then, is to fling LDS standards aside and act immorally. I'm not saying this is a good idea, but I think this is what often happens in LDS-saturated areas.
The lack of social pressure to be active in most of the country means that, after a few years away from the mothership (let alone a generation or two), only the people who have really firm testimonies of LDS teachings bother to live a Church-standards lifestyle; the rest, as the rolls of any congregation in the Midwest will confirm, simply go inactive.
Well, I don't really agree with this. I think going inactive is more rampant in heavily-LDS areas than in non-. There are a lot of reasons for people leaving the Church and I don't think "pressure" is a big reason for many people staying active. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is a motivator at all. In my little LDS community, some people went inactive and re-active all the time. If I were to go inactive, I wouldn't care less what my neighbors thought or said--my activity is my own business.
And some people don't go inactive, they just move. This is what happened to my ward back where I grew up. We used to have two wards in our building, but it has dwindled down to one. The members didn't go inactive, they just couldn't afford to live in Silicon Valley and moved elsewhere.
But I've never lived in the Mid-West, perhaps situations are different there. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 17:28, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I just want to comment on one matter. One of you at least seems to be making the assumption that what people tell you is an accurate representation of the truth. But this is often not the case. It is quite likely that people living in a society with strong social pressure to conform to abstience will lie and do their best to hide it if they do not conform. So unless you're monitoring people 24/7 it can be quite difficult to really ascertain what's really going on. For example, just because only one person ever told to you that they have had sex before their mission, doesn't mean only one person ever had sex before their mission. It could very well that everyone besides you has had sex before their mission. Their just more discrete then that one person. BTW, the opposite can be true in societies where there is strong social pressure to have sex. It is not uncommon for people to claim they're having or have had sex when they haven't just to better conform to these social pressures. Nil Einne 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
That may be the case, but I have spent an awful lot of time around college-age and 20's Mormons; if they are having sex they are pretty good at hiding it. Eran of Arcadia 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy in Utah and Crime

I took out the quote that said utah was number one in teen pregnancy. Its really 47th (see Utah). Is it just me or is this article incredibly biased and misinformed? It seems like there are 2 or 3 issues that take way too much precidence on this page. 08:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, along these lines, why does it say rape and larceny at BYU is slightly above national average? According to the <a href=>linked web site</a> (I dug deeper to get to the right page), which reports specifically on universities, there were zero rapes at BYU in 2005, and larceny was below that at U of U, which has a smaller student body. I don't know what the national average is, but it seems to me that someone may have slyly slipped these in. Looking quickly at other colleges of similar size, the only ones other than BYU to have no rapes were community colleges (no on campus housing).

After a quick check, it seems you are right. Can anyone corroborate the rape/larceny stat? Rape may be higher in Provo, but the instance of rape at BYU is much less. I'm going to flag it as unverified pending removal. ekimd 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It is true that the rape/larceny stats are for Provo as a whole. If you look at the revision before the more specific stats were added, the article carried a blanket statement that "According to the Uniform Crime Reports, crime is low; violent crime is also low." The UCR numbers for Provo are available at [1] and are cited. (Currently as footnote #23). The crime stats cited in this paragraph have always been for Provo. Federally mandated campus crime statistics provided by BYU show 0 rapes in 2004, compare to the UCR report for Provo which says 44. Incidents like this one [2] emphasize why crime stats for Provo matter more than stats for BYU. A woman can be raped twice in BYU-approved housing, read the story on BYU's NewsNet, and yet the official BYU rape metric stays at zero. Oasisbob 22:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense for the rape stat, but what about the larceny stat? According to your link, Provo is below the national average. ekimd 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right, the 2005 data shows larceny as below the national average. I'm having trouble finding the 2004 data, but my guess is that the new data (released around october) for 2005 was rotated in recently, and larceny dropped as compared to the past. Oasisbob 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation with IATA-BYU code

I don't think this should be at the top of the "Brigham Young University" page, possibly on the "BYU" redirect page though. Not sure of the exact Wikipedia policy on this one, but it seems only relevant on this page because "BYU" redirects to it.

Ianneub 00:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I took care of this by creating a disambiguation page at BYU. COGDEN June 29, 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Interesting, ahem, quote

Why is the following text in the perceptions section presented as a quote: "bubble of shallowness, focus on appearances, and casualness toward marriage"?

There was no attribution, and it's not exactly NPOV. Just putting it in quotation marks doesn't make it okay, if it's not attributed.

I think it should be removed or whoever knows where it came from should cite their reference. FuzzyOnion 18:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

This is just a question in general, but I think it applies here, too (I apologize if this is not the right place to ask). Why aren't more things cited? (Both in the BYU article and on Wikipedia in general.) It seems like it's not too hard, and Wikipedia even has codes for including footnotes, but I don't see too many citations.
v-ball 02:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It seems wikipedians in general are somewhat lazy in citing references. Wikipedia:Cite_sources is a good place to look for a Wikipedia style guide on the subject. I think Wikipedia will never be very useful as a reference until its articles contain good references, except maybe for video games and computer jargon.
FuzzyOnion 18:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

External links

So, I just deleted the newly added BYU Choirs link. Here's my reasoning for this: There is a link to BYU's main Web site,, and from there, you can get each department's Web site, including the choirs'. If we were keep the choir link, it would seem to me that it would be necessary to also include links to each and every other department.

John 23:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


I started this Wiki about 6 months ago with a new student roommate, to provide information about BYU culture not available in man other places. It is basically intended to answer a lot of the little questions people might have upon coming to BYU. What is there to do? What are these all these acronyms, etc. I am a BYU senior and Y Group Leader for this fall. Hope this is an appropriate addition.

Pmaccabe 04:02, August 11, 2005 (MDT)
I assume this is what you mean: ? It's all I could find on Google. If that's not it, then where is it?
FuzzyOnion 18:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why was this link removed? It's relavent--it's about BYU-related subjects. If anything, the other link I added (I didn't add ProvoPulse) should be removed. It's a wiki that is about Provo, but not BYU particularly. is about BYU. I added the Provopedia because it looked like a newer beta version of Frecklefoot | Talk 21:48, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I checked out Provo Pulse, and it looked to me like your basic blog. If I'm reading an encyclopedia entry about BYU, and I click on the external links to learn more about BYU, and I go to Provo Pulse and get a bunch of blog entries, I am disappointed. That's why I removed it. I suspect the folks behind Provo Pulse themselves added the link, to try to increase traffic to their site. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 22:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

But its a blog about and by BYU students. Don't you think that's relevant? It might be more insightful than the encyclopedia entry as to life at BYU. Frecklefoot | Talk 22:10, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


This article seems to have a heavy anti-BYU and anti-Mormon bias. Someone who knows more about this school than I do should try to make sure that both sides are fairly represented.

I don't detect any. I don't now much about either but I don't get any anti- bias. Well unless you consider listing info on the honor code, marriage rates etc a anti- bias which I don't (I'm assuming it's accurate) Nil Einne 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Religious requirements

In addition, students and faculty who are LDS are required to obtain endorsement from local church leaders that they actively attend local church services and practice church standards of behavior. Non-LDS students are asked to provide a similar endorsement from an ecclesiastic leader of their choice with their application for admittance.

I'm a bit confused by the above statement. It seems to suggest non-LDS students need to regularly attend some sort of religious service. This would imply that atheists, agonostics, and non practicing religious individuals can't attend BYU. I also wonder what happens with religions where regular attendance of some sort of religious service is not compulsory or even generally common, e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Sikhism which is mentioned in reference in the article later on. Can anyone help clarify the matter? is my interpretation correct? Nil Einne 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I got my B.S. at BYU. The statement you cited is an accurate statement of the facts of BYU's policy. Not only that, but all students and professors are required to adhere to LDS Church social standards, including e.g. refraining from any consumption of coffee, tea, alcohol or tobacco or being in the presence of someone else consuming alcohol, along with BYU's Dress and Grooming Standards and Residential Living Standards, including e.g. no facial hair for men without a note from a doctor or religious leader, no shorts that don't extend to the knee, no members of the opposite gender allowed in a bedroom or bathroom of a single person's residence, regardless of the the student or professor's personal religious affiliation or lack thereof, on or off campus. (They now allow members of the opposite gender to occupy the bathroom in one's residence in an emergency, but that is a liberalization since I was there.) While your concerns are valid, and are frequently a topic of argument by the students and professors on campus, you might want to take them up with BYU's trustees, i.e. the top leadership of the LDS Church.
It's also worth noting that someone who was LDS and has left the church is forbidden from attending BYU, regardless of any ecclesiastical endorsement from any subsequent church one might attend (short of returning to the good graces of the LDS church).
- Reaverdrop 01:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide a reference for that? While I don't doubt it could be true, I always thought it was handled on a case by case basis Epachamo 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

I removed the part that says that the distribution of different sexual orientations is unknown because of that very reason. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state what IS known, not what is NOT known. -Gandalf 23:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

SugarDaddy's Edit

Sugardaddy removed "The school's strict Honor Code does not require LGBT non-member students and faculty to remain in the closet, so long as they are strictly celibate, or they are monogamous within a legal heterosexual marriage. There is, nonetheless, a strong current against deviation from the LDS Church's norms." saying (No need for paragraph being included in the student demographics. No major colleges have these statistics on their site). I disagree with this deletion on the grounds that BYU is a largely unique institution, and its policies are very dissimilar from colleges of many other christian institutions. The LDS Church, and by extension, BYU maintain a strong "moral" stance on LGBT issues, and it is thus pertinent to the atmosphere and setup of the University. Bo-Lingua 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of LGBT information

I removed this information because it is not relevant for this or any other universirty unless stated university is specifically a GLBT institution. This paragraph has been added by someone with a GLBT agenda. You can see this by their edits to other wiki articles. This comment by Sugardaddy.

That's a good point. If this is an ongoing thing, then I agree with your deletion. If it's simply because you don't necessarily want LGBT information on the BYU page, I would disagree. I will then retract the above and we'll let the page sit as it is. Bo-Lingua 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said, and let's keep it the way it is. — John 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess my only counter to this is that while other major universities may not have GLBT information on their wiki pages, I wouldn't imagine there are a whole lot of schools that have an Honor Code, even less one as strict or as specific as BYU. In my mind, it makes this information somewhat noteable. —akghetto talk 09:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Helaman Halls Remodeling

Should it be noted that Helaman Halls over the past few years has been completely gutted and remodled? Other than the buildings' foundations, framework, and names there is little left of the original construction. -- Kail Ceannai 04:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Making the Page more in line with the wikipedia style guide

The main thing I am concerned about at present is the lead section. The first sentences seems more like the first line of a history than an encyclopedia article. It doesn't seem to give a good enough description of what BYU is. But before I change it I thought I would present my idea here and ask for others to look at and come up with other ideas.

The only thing that I can think of is something like: "Brigham Young University is an institution owned and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, with the 99% of the students belonging to that sect." Flyby 19:22 10 March 2006

Weekly devotionals / forums

BYU hosts weekly religious devotionals and academic forums, which are broadcast live by satellite. All campus business adjourns at 11:00am on Tuesdays to permit students and faculty to attend these devotionals. I find these to be a very enriching aspect of academic life at BYU. The article does not mention these. Can we add? Brownsteve 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Brownsteve, good idea, I think devtionals are unique enough to merit place in the article. JackWilliams 01:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Academic Rankings

I think that the undergraduate accounting program is the only one at BYU that has consistently been ranked in the top 5 in the country. I am aware of the recent BusinessWeek ranking for the entire business program (at #8 in the nation, I believe), but I that high ranking was probably due to the accounting program. BYU's finance and general business programs are probably not in the top 10 in the US. JackWilliams 01:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In connection with the current dispute on whether it's relevant to compare BYU's selectivity to other similar universities, someone inserted it's #70 ranking (and did so in his explanation that BYU wasn't that hot). That's fine (though the comment shows bias on his part). I moved the rankings to the relevant section (on rankings) from admissions. --tortdog 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic Freedom

This article suggests that all of the "dissidents" were denied continuing status due to their views. In reality, while that may be entirely true in some cases, in others it may be true that this was just one of many factors. I would recommend that this section be re-written to clarify the whole picture so that it reflects what actually happened in each case. As is, I think it is almost non-factual to the extent of being borderline POV. --NThurston 16:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but the problem is that, for the most part, information of what actually happened is not readily accessible to the public, either because the individuals involved haven't told the whole story or because BYU tends to not give comment on these occurences. Basically, I think we'd need to qualify which "dissidents" were denied continuing statues due to their views and which were not in order to keep NPOV. If you have sources that show the whole picture, then they should most definately be included and the article should be re-written accordingly. Until then, however, I personally don't know how else to rewrite the segment on Academic Freedom except as it is written. Perhaps we can put a disclaiming sentence in the segment that there may be facts invovled with the stories that have not yet been taken into consideration by the public? I don't think we can, or even should, go further than that at this time. We'd need to know why and how the segment is "non-factual to the extent of being borderline POV" first.
If I'm out of line on this, please let me know. I love BYU and I think that the facts SHOULD stand in the way of a good story, but the facts as I know them don't really differ much from the segment in question. NoCoolName_Tom | Talk 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I seem to recall at the time that this was all happening that at least in one of the English prof's case (can't remember which) and perhaps even Knowlton's, there was talk around campus that the applications for continuing status weren't strong enough on their own merits, so the dissident angle may have been misleading. In fact, I am not sure that in any of the cases the official reason given for dismissal included antagonistic behaviors. I am pretty sure that this all was covered in the AAUP report, but I haven't had much interest in perusing it. I fear that this paragraph casts the university in an unfairly bad light, suggesting that even minor disagreements about policy or having a personal opinion is enough to get you canned, which is not the case (or there would have been a lot more people canned that just these). If someone wanted to research it, I am sure they could find news articles that at least express the University's view on these dismissals. It is POV in the sense that it expresses the unverifiable opinion that all of the dismissals were due to an intolerant policy regarding personal beliefs. At a minimum, the other side of the argument should be presented - that in some cases they were denied continuing status based on lack of academic merits. NThurston 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's something Google turned up relating to Farr - - showing that she did not make it out of the 3 year probationary period, and the University claiming it was due to academic issues, not personal, though there was an agreement reached regarding "irreconcilable differences." Not clearly the case that it was due to her outspoken views.
Also, the information given on Epperson's case seem to suggest that it is readily admitted that he was fired for failing to pay tithing, which is a condition of employment not related to one's personal views on Church policy. Again, I am not too interested in taking this on myself, but I am sure that there are others that know more about where to find the information. NThurston 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. This information should be noted. Perhaps the segment could be rewritten in the following manner: 1) Introduction of the controversy (basically, keep the first paragraph). 2)Comparing the Statement on Academic Freedom to that of Conzaga University (this comparison is made by BYU and is referred to near the end). 3)The statement "widely criticised" is perhaps too POV. We should list the major citics (the AAUP, and any others) and then the cases for their criticism (the link to the AAUP report needs to be updated, too; preferably to the AAUP website, if they still have it). 4)the response to the claims of the critics, sourced as well as possible (like some of the things NThurston said). 5)Perhaps we can end with the addendums to the faculty contracts that are mentioned, and perhaps comparing them to what is requried of the ecclesiastial review that the students must complete.
Anyways, that's just my two-cents. I also agree that the segment is very negative, but I can't put my personal sentiments ahead of the facts I am aware of. NoCoolName_Tom | Talk 21:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I found a good source, as well. BYU Magazine has an article about the AAUP report: The Issue of Academic Freedom. NoCoolName_Tom | Talk 22:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am the source of much of the original text here, and I agree there are POV problems. I'm taking a first crack at adjusting the text. COGDEN 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A step in the right direction. I believe that Houston's actions were at least part of the reason given for her dismissal, however. Perhaps this section could be structured in the following outline form:
1. New guidelines were adopted, including why the University believes it has a right to address certain types of speech and behavior
2. AAUP received some complaints regarding the implementation of the new guidelines
3. The Houston cause was a primary concern (largely a procedural matter, actually)
4. Other cases, while not directly associated with personal beliefs added to the concern
5. The University has responded to the allegations/issues
6. Current status of academic freedom efforts and documents --NThurston 13:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I must say that COGDEN's revision reads much better, at least to me. I also deleted a doubled reference to Mr. Nielsen, and added a link to a BYU Magazine interview that I felt was applicable. I think that's in line, right?
On a related note, please let me know if I've overstepped my bounds in responding to this, or if I've included too much POV. NoCoolName_Tom | Talk 05:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it is a bit POV or at least unfair to BYU to draw a comparison between AAUP's statement in 1965 concerning Gonzaga, during that period between 1940-1970 when they were much more accepting of religious intstitutions limiting academic freedoms, and any current concerns about BYU's policies. First of all what is popularly viewed as appropriate and acceptable has changed significantly. If this were a comparison of the AAUP's statements about BYU in 1965 it might be fine, but a bit dated. Unless a more current comparison can be drawn in the same time frame, I think the reference to Gonzaga should be removed. Phil 07:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree regarding the difference in time periods, and added the missing citation for the reference to Gonzaga as (re)published in 1990. I would welcome anyone else's opinion on keeping/removing the statement. If it remains, I would welcome any collaborative efforts to provide citations. -- Jared 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this issue given so much detail?

Why is this issue important enough to be included at such depth in an online encyclopedia? The most it should have say about it, imho, is in connection with BYU being a private university: "BYU has in the past disciplined faculty for bla bla bla. BYU maintains such discipline is within its rights as a private university, although others contend it shows a limit of academic freedom" - Add a few external citations and be done with it. The extremely long section feels very out of place in this entry. --Ryan Gardner 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't really reduce the level of detail, consistent with Wikipedia policy, without budding-out a new sub-article. But I don't think the section warrants its own article yet. In the meantime, the only remedy is to fill out more detail in the other sections to balance things out. COGDEN 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. --04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why in the introduction? I discussed this regarding Catholic University (and Tulane), and it was agreed including this in the introduction to a university showed bias, when it was explained in the document itself. This is NOT a major issue. It does NOT hit the news. It, in fact, is somewhat dated. If including censure information is "bias" for Catholic University and Tulane, it should be perceived as "bias" here and this should be removed from the intro and kept in the body. --tortdog 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We have about nine paragraphs on this issue in the relevant section. That's more than any other university censured by this group. And I've deleted the redundant information from the introductory paragraphs, as it is NOT a major issue and is ALREADY thoroughly discussed. Removal from the intro mirrors the treatment to other universities. I still suggest that this information be pared down, in line with that of other university articles. tortdog 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that this info stay in the lead. It is very relevant to BYU. The other universities that are censured should have the same info in their leads. Wikipedia is all about conveying relevant information, not hiding it. Tort Dawg 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried fighting this issue with the other university articles? I have discussed this with them, and came to agree that it's NOT that big of an issue, to present in an introduction. Already, the information on the censure on BYU FAR exceeds that in other articles. We are WAY over the top on this. tortdog 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Making BYU Inline with Other University Articles I want this issue addressed. It's been stewing for some time. Several universities have been censured by AAUP for "academic freedom." For BYU, that results in an 11-paragraph discourse (approximately 10% of the entire article), with headings and setoffs, while many censured university articles carry NO information on the censure and Catholic University has one small paragraph. Meanwhile, with 10% of the article not enough to inform the public on the censure of BYU, some continue to try to force the issue to the fore and put it in the intro as well. Why? Seems to me that we either move to make this censure information prominent in all other university articles as well, or we make BYU's conform to the others. Right now, BYU is an isolated example. Editors of Catholic University's article already have expressed strong views that the censure should not be highlighted (as it is at BYU), and that it's current treatment is enough. I agree, as you will NOT find this to be a major issue in the news with BYU or any other university. In fact, it's almost as though someone is trying to increase the stature of AAUP as some kind of perfect judge of what is right and important in academic freedom, and that one word from AAUP should be blasted to the ends of the earth. Thoughts? --tortdog 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A similar issue is being discussed at article discussion page. Some have opined that any discussion of specifics on academic freedom controversies should be rather limited, as the article is about the university and not about the controversies. I am inclined to agree, thinking that this portion of the article needs to be reduced, such that it no longer takes up 10% of the article text. If you disagree, then please put in your comments at UCB's discussion page, so that we treat the universities equally. tortdog 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have created an Academic freedom at Brigham Young University article and linked it to this one. We may want rely on the link to explain the specifics, and confine this article's coverage to a summary. Wrad 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)