Talk:Brigham Young University/Archive 3

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

External links

Are all of the external links needed on this article? Some are redundant to the new template listed below the External links section—others seem tangential to the article. Are there any editors would really like to remain? --Eustress (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to silence, I have removed several superfluous or redundant links from the section. --Eustress (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Frank Abagnale Reference

What is the Frank Abagnale reference on this page? It seems tangential to the purpose of the page and included as an after thought. I think this reference should be removed. Daw44 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove. --Eustress (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Big article

The article is getting pretty big and I would like input on how to cut it down. I think it could be beneficial to either cut down or outsource much of the Student housing section. It would also probably be good to outsource much of the BYU Salt Lake Center section to its own article. Also, could the Religious activity and Culture sections be merged or outsourced somehow? Furthermore, the Honor Code section seems a bit overbearing considering the topic already has its own article.

Anyway, just opening the dialogue. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's start by making a Brigham Young University campus article and moving info there. Wrad (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I created List of Brigham Young University buildings per FA Dartmouth College. Any help appreciated. Once we get most of the buildings nailed down, we can start to condense this section significantly, especially since a lot of the buildings also have their own articles. --Eustress (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I also think the Controversy section should be cut and moved to the history article. Wrad (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The honor code section looks great. I agree that the controversy stuff seems like a better fit for the main History article, but some references to notable controversies should probably still be left in the main article under the History section to ensure NPOV. --Eustress (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets make a Student life at Brigham Young University to cover the protests, culture, and religious stuff so we can shrink this article down a bit more. Wrad (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I made one but haven't started slimming things down quite yet. Wrad (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, slimming done. I really think we should cut the whole Controversy section though. The argument for keeping it was originally that if we had the bit about Dick Cheney, we had to have all these other little protests, but Dick ain't around anymore, and the section is looking more and more insignificant the more we cut. Wrad (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I just cut the controversy section but it is still standing intact in the student life article. Wrad (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, I think we've got it. FAs Dartmouth and Duke are sitting at 98,000 kb, a good 15,000 more than what we have now. Wrad (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'd still like to rewrite the Campus section for flow, but I'll propose any possible changes here first. Also, do you think the LDS atmosphere and Culture sections should stand alone instead of being merged? The two seem intertwined—the Culture section even talking about LDS norms a little bit. Just a thought. --Eustress (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to see what you have in mind with the merge. I left a note with our friends at the University project to get some outside perspective on our slimdown. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Student housing section could still be trimmed quite a bit if not moved entirely to the other article. I don't think student housing is as important as some of the other buildings. If we are going to feature buildings it should probably be the SWKT (one of tallest in Provo), Library, or other notable buildings. Daw44 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That section already has been trimmed quite a bit... More than half... Wrad (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


The ref scrollbar is generally discouraged in articles in mainspace. The biggest reason I've heard for this is that it messes things up if you try to print out the article. Anyway, in every case I've seen the scrollbar suggested, it has been discouraged invariably, especially at FAC. Wrad (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad...I think it gets a lot of clutter out of the way and is still functional. --Eustress (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
There are other things we can do to reduce clutter. We can combine refs that are for the same fact with bullets. This was done in the Shakespeare article. Wrad (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC issues

We will get hammered at FAC for having so many BYU citations. I think that it's kind of a ridiculous thing, but I know someone's going to bring it up. They will probably also be ticked that we have so many Deseret News cites, too. We should replace as many BYU and Deseret News sources as we can if we want this to be an FA. We should also look at other University FAs (all of them cite themselves about as much as we do) and arm ourselves with statistics and facts about how this issue is handled in other University FAs so that we are completely ready for this. Wrad (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

BYU article
Refs coming directly from the university "": 94 8
From Deseret News: 5
Other sources: 72
Duke University article (an FA) sources: 90
Sources from the Methodist Church: 2
"": 18
Other sources: 72

Remarkably similar, eh? -- Wrad (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow...great research, Wrad! I agree that we should look for more third-party sources, though. I'll do my best. --Eustress (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I just removed or replaced five refs. If we could get the original material on everything in the rankings section that would be great. Wrad (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Chinese ranking of top 500 universities worldwide lists BYU

here Wrad (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • It is also in the top 100 worldwide in terms of internet presence and influence. [1] Wrad (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ranked 89th worldwide in terms of professional efficiency. [2] Wrad (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ranked 338th worldwide in terms of scientific journal contribution and influence. Wrad (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No frats nor sorors

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the article that BYU doesn't allow/have any fraternities or sororities? I think that's worth mentioning. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to be in there, but we couldn't find a source for it. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

De facto Flagship?

How about if we use the phrase "de facto flagship" in the intro? Maybe in the second sentence? Something like "BYU is the de facto flagship university of the Mormon church"? JackWilliams (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that's a bit too much. There was a whole discussion on the topic of "flagship" earlier, and I think we should steer clear of the word since a consensus cannot be reached regarding it. However, I made one change in the intro to differentiate BYU from its "sister schools", saying it is the "the oldest existing institution in its (LDS Church's) Church Educational System." This is a fact and elaborates on the CES template at the bottom of the article. Hope this helps. --Eustress (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What if we used some references to support the de facto flagship idea? Also, maybe we could use soft wording and say something like "BYU is regarded by many to be the de facto flagship university in the Mormon church." JackWilliams (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
An official source to define BYU as a flagship includes a quote from an address by President Gordon B. Hinckley in the October 1999 General Conference (November 1999 Ensign): "We shall continue to support BYU and its Hawaii campus. We shall continue to support Ricks College. We are not likely to build other university campuses. We wish that we might build enough to accommodate all who desire to attend. But this is out of the question. They are so terribly expensive. But we shall keep these as flagships testifying to the great and earnest commitment of this Church to education, both ecclesiastical and secular, and while doing so prove to the world that excellent secular learning can be gained in an environment of religious faith." (emphasis added) However, this defines all current BYU campuses as flagships and does not include LDS Business College. BYU would only be "the" flagship among the flagships based on size. As to someone's arbitrary decision to only allow public universities the term flagship, not any member of a system, is beyond me. In any case, I'd say "BYU is (the oldest, the largest, or one of the de-facto) flagship university(-ies) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Church Educational System." GreenwoodKL (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "byhigh" :
    • {{cite web| title =From 1903 to 1920 ~ A High School Within a University| work =Brigham Young High School History| publisher =Brigham Young High School| date= 2007| url =| accessdate = 2007-08-20 }}
    • [ History of Brigham Young High School from 1903 to 1920<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Financial Endowment

There seems to be some confusion about the size of BYU's financial endowment. The report cited it over ten years old and the actual figure in the report is 289,647,000 not 2.89 billion. I did a little looking around the internet for confirmation or a newer figure and found varying figures. Also, after making a few calls to offices around campus, nobody could give me a straight answer. Can anyone find a sure answer to this problem?

Bill Lava (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry. Give us some time to investigate a little bit. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The 100 Hour Board could probably obtain this information for Wikipedia, if someone were to ask them (I'm leaving the redlink; there was an article about them once which was deleted). Their website is here. The Jade Knight (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Flagship issue at BYU

We've discussed this a million different ways and there's just no way to put it in that would satisfy a consensus of editors. Keep it out. Wrad (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We never came to a consensus. I'm willing to tone it down by saying "Mormon leaders have described BYU as the flaghip" instead of saying "BYU is the flagship." I think this is a compromise.JackWilliams (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Flagship means something totally different in every other instance it is used, and only some Mormon leaders (one, two?) have said this, while others have said otherwise. It's misleading and it just isn't going to work. Wrad (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wrad. Even though I did not have a problem referring to it as the flagship of the Church Educational System, it was discussed heavily and decided to just not mention it at all. It is up to the reader to make the assumption that because BYU is the oldest and by far the largest of the schools in CES that it is some sort of de facto flagship. In addition, there is no need to refer to BYU as "BYU in Provo" especially in the BYU article itself. It is redundant, especially the way it was done in the opening paragraph. The existence of BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii do not necessitate additional mention of Provo in regards to BYU as neither school (BYUI or BYUH) is ever referred to simply as BYU. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
l]The last time we had this debate I came up with quotes from Bateman, Kimball, Maeser, and I think Oaks and Romney that BYU is the flagship. Where are the quotes that BYU-P is equal to BYU-I, BYU-H, and LDSBC? I'm fine with saying "It" instead of "BYU in Provo" and "de facto flagship of CES" (Although I think mentioning CES in the opening is a little complicating; the fact that BYU is part of CES is sort of a minor technicality). JackWilliams (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
All of those people spoke before either before there was a BYU Idaho or Hawaii or they are BYU Alumni themselves. Those are pretty lousy sources. You never actually provided direct quotes for these supposed sources either except for Kimball. Bateman doesn't call it a "flagship". He describes it differently. Thus, you only have one source from 26 33 years ago saying this! Why should we provide sources on the other end? If there's a lack of good sources for the statement, it shouldn't be in the article. You don't have to back up something you don't say in the article. That's just silly. Wrad (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
An official source to define BYU as a flagship includes a quote from an address by President Gordon B. Hinckley in the October 1999 General Conference (November 1999 Ensign): "We shall continue to support BYU and its Hawaii campus. We shall continue to support Ricks College. We are not likely to build other university campuses. We wish that we might build enough to accommodate all who desire to attend. But this is out of the question. They are so terribly expensive. But we shall keep these as flagships testifying to the great and earnest commitment of this Church to education, both ecclesiastical and secular, and while doing so prove to the world that excellent secular learning can be gained in an environment of religious faith." (emphasis added) However, this defines all current BYU campuses as flagships and does not include LDS Business College. BYU would only be "the" flagship among the flagships based on size. As to someone's arbitrary decision to only allow public universities the term flagship, not any member of a system, is beyond me. In any case, I'd say "BYU is (the oldest, the largest, or one of the de-facto) flagship university(-ies) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Church Educational System." GreenwoodKL (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would just leave out the word "flagship". The Jade Knight (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How Does BYU Prevent Vandalism of this Site?

There are a lot of people out there with an ax to grind against Mormons, and yet I hardly ever see anything debated as derogatory or misrepresentational on this site. How do the senior Wiki editors monitoring this site know which contributions are to be trusted? Has BYU itself dedicated a person to constantly cleaning up the edits? (anonymous edit made by

Not that I know of. Most of the vandalism here is from Univ. of Utah fans, not gay activists, anyway. Why do you ask? Wrad (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Any editors can know which contributions are trustworthy by looking at their content and seeing if contributions either have valid references or are in line with existing references. The reason this page appears to not have much vandalism is because it has a group of dedicated editors who keep track of it and make changes as quickly as possible. Many of those editors either went to or attend BYU, but many have little if any connection to the school. You don't need to have personal connections to a given subject to write a good article on it; you just need credible sources. I certainly hope BYU hasn't "assigned" someone to watch the Wikipedia article because that would be against Wikipedia policy anyway! This isn't a BYU article; it is a Wikipedia article about BYU. Take a look at the article's edit history and you will see plenty of vandalism has occurred; it just doesn't stick around very long. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks JonRidinger; those are good points. Wrad, did anybody say anything about gay activists? (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the protests on the news lately about prop 8? You said "There are a lot of people out there with an ax to grind against Mormons." In the current social climate, I assumed that's what you were referring to. Wrad (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but that is the protest of the moment. It is the Southern evangelicals that have been after Mormons for a long, long time, and they are more who I had in mind. (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest the merge of L. Tom Perry Special Collections Library into this article. As there is no real reason to separate the two. Dengero (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How about merging it into Harold B. Lee Library instead? Wrad (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Very True. I'm going to do it now. Dengero (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"No official motto"

After searching for a source showing that BYU had no official motto (or to find the official motto, if it existed), I eventually came up with the same article someone else had found a long time ago. It had been commented out but I restored it, since the link worked perfectly for me. The justification for commenting it out was "it redirects to the Deseret News homepage." Despite the overly large Deseret News banner at the top of the page, the article is indeed there.

--B Fizz (etc) 00:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It works for me now too. I tried it in a couple different browsers, so perhaps the source's site was having temporary issues. Thanks for investigating. --Eustress (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Alumni section

I find the Alumni summary section hard to read. The prose is nice, but there are way too many wikilinks and the disjointed blue text confuses my eyes. What is the consensus about turning this section into a bulleted list? Brownsteve (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Or moving it to a subpage entirely. Support! The Jade Knight (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A subpage (which is a FL) already exists and is linked at the beginning of the section (List of Brigham Young University alumni). This section should probably stay as is, as it is consistent with WikiProject Universities FAs Darmouth College#Alumni, Duke University#Alumni, and University of Michigan#Notable people and alumni. If the prose is too overwhelming, readers can view the sortable list. --Eustress (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Eustress is right, we already have a featured list subpage, and the section models very well the Alumni sections of featured university articles. I don't think listing it or moving it are valid options. Wrad (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


I question the credibility of the Sustainable Endowment Institute's report card program. Their site justifies its report with phrases like "The university has no known policy", "has not made any public statements" and "The university has not made public". This is despite BYU publishing the exact reports they are looking for. It seems SEI didn't do their homework.

BYU's report, on the other hand, cites relevant facts. Since SEI and BYU are completely at odds here, I side with BYU. Further, these report card ratings were added in one run by this user, likely an employee of SEI. Until SEI's report becomes relevant or newsworthy, and they cite specific deficiencies at BYU, I think the report should stay out of the article.

Comments? Brownsteve (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think including the ranking is critical, but I looked into it before, and I'm betting the sustainability pages were added in late 2008 or early 2009. If you look at the id numbers in the URLs of the sustainability pages, you'll see that they occur after Fall 2008 enrollment data was available. There is now a link to sustainability under the campus tab on, but not in the most recent archived version (February 2008 - it doesn't load properly, but you can see the menu items in the source code). There was also an article in the BYU Universe that specifically mentioned the Y Facts sustainability page in April 2009. Seems like an odd thing to write about if the page has been around for years.
If you look at the report card's methodology, you'll see that they looked for sources other than the school's website and that "the presidents at all 300 schools were contacted via email... If these school officials did not respond promptly, SEI made additional attempts to contact each school. Two separate follow-up emails were sent and at least two phone calls were placed to each school. In total, 271 of the 300 schools (90.33 percent) responded to the campus survey." Only 4 schools received an F (sort by grade), so if SEI just got lazy and decided to give BYU an F, it's at least not a widespread phenomenon... Klubbit (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Honor Code and Homosexuality

I just want to say that the final sentence at the end of the Honor Code section looks a bit out of place. There is no real discussion of what exactly is "anti-gay" about the Honor Code. Also, it favors the LGBT movement over other groups that have protested the Honor Code in the past and present, which really isn't fair. We already have the Homosexuality issue discussed in the Brigham Young University Honor Code article, which is linked to in the section. We need to either expand that section in order to explain and adequately cover both sides of the many protests against the Honor Code (which I think is not a wise route to take and would take up too much space), or, we need to discuss those controversies in the Honor Code's separate article. Wrad (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to discuss this part of the honor code in only one location unless one wishes to white-wash BYU and cloak gays and lesbians. Hyacinth (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith and not immediately jump to accusations of misbehavior and malacious intent. I agree with you Wrad. The sentence seems out of place and gives undue weight to one group's criticism. I'd support removing it. The topic is well covered on the topics page itself and doesn't fit well in the summary style. If we don't remove it, there are two other points that seem to be related to the current edit dispute:
  • Including "sexuality" in the rules the Honor Code covers - What exactly is meant by "sexuality"? From my reading of the honor code, someone is not violating the honor code by being a homosexual. To quote the code, "One’s sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue." Also, looking at the definition of chastity, the limitation the code does place on homosexual behavior is covered by "chastity".
  • "The honor code has also been criticized as unrealistic." is totally OR and unattributed POV and should be removed until a reliable source is provided.
Thoughts from the other editors? --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Add criticisms from other groups then. Hyacinth (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I explained below why that really isn't feasible in a summary section like this. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to concur with FyzixFighter and Wrad here, though I am hardly short on my own criticisms of the Honor Code. Because the Honor Code article does talk about the controversies and criticisms, simply putting the criticisms of one group, which just happens to be the group of the one editor who added it, is unbalanced and out of place here. Adding more of them really would be too much for a section that is more or less a summary. On top of that, "sexuality" is not an Honor Code issue, so it should not be listed. Cultural elements aside, one cannot get in trouble or be denied admission simply because they are gay. Adding sexuality (and especially "unrealistic"...says who??) and the last sentence reeks of article activism and borders on propaganda in my opinion, neither of which have a place in an encyclopedic article. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you concur with FyzixFighter, then let me remind you: "Please remember to assume good faith". Hyacinth (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted zero of your edits; I simply stated my opinion what your additions resemble. I don't doubt you feel your actions are helping make the article better, but I obviously see them differently. And please practice what you are trying to preach in regards to assuming good faith. You have been slow to discuss your actual reasons for including the info you feel is important (and implied not including it was "white-washing BYU") and have provided little reasons or explanations even in your edit summaries. Discussion is also part of showing good faith. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's a question: Why should homosexuality controversies be highlighted above all the countless other controversies surrounding the honor code? How is that fair? I actually think we could insert a small paragraph about such controversies, but it would take some work and negotiation. We'd need both sides of the homosexuality issue, the youtube issue, and possibly some other things, and it would need to be very brief. Wrad (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The reason it stands out above all of the other issues is because it is the SINGLE biggist issue in the public medium affecting the church at the moment. In the wider context, it is an anomoly that bears scruitiny. Manticore55 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Athletics section

I noticed there are articles for the men's basketball and football teams, but was surprised an article as developed as this does not have a separate athletics article spun off, like BYU Cougars or Brigham Young Cougars, which is pretty standard for most large university articles. I'm making sure there wasn't already an effort and it was perhaps decided against. For what it's worth, if an athletics article is created, I support using the full name of the school ("Brigham Young Cougars") instead of the shortened "BYU Cougars" (see WP:ABREV). --JonRidinger (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If other articles do it, the pattern should be replicated here. Manticore55 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Chart of colleges

The chart of colleges is an integral part of the Organization section. The first paragraph ends with a colon and leads directly into the list of colleges. Putting them off to the side leaves us with a colon in an odd place. Not only that, but the way the section is written as a whole leaves the reader expecting a list of colleges between the first and second paragraph, otherwise it reads awkwardly. The chart off to the side kind of runs together as well, making it difficult to read as it is not bulleted or spaced. Space is not really a problem in this article yet, either, so I really don't think we need to move the chart to the side to free some up. Wrad (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I failed to notice the colon, but that, along with bullets, etc., could be easily fixed. The table I proposed can be seen here under the Organization section. I think it is a lot less interruptive in the overall flow of the article and that it eliminates the unneeded white space. —Eustress talk 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"LDS or Mormon Church"

A good-intentioned anonymous editor removed the phrase "(LDS or Mormon Church)" from the intro and I reverted the edit. The reason we keep the nicknames here is because both "LDS Church" and "Mormon Church" are widely used names for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so having them there right after the full church name is a way for the reader to make the connection that LDS Church, Mormon Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are all one in the same. I'm fully aware of the Church's stance on using the official name, but remember this is Wikipedia, not an LDS publication. The key here is helping readers understand a topic better within Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Now, if it just used LDS Church or Mormon Church then yes, we would need to change that, but including common nicknames is not a bad idea at all in this context. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree. We should make clear what the official, legal name of the church is, as well as common nicknames. But for "Mormon church", the 'c' should probably not be capitalized. "LDS Church" is sort of an abbreviation for the official name, in which the 'c' is capitalized, but "Mormon church" is in neither official nor an abbreviation, and we should be careful not to portray it as such. In summary, according to me: it's not politically correct to refer to the church as the "Mormon church" throughout the article, but there is no harm in mentioning the nickname in the intro. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to use "Mormon Church", I'd keep it capitalized. The "Mormon Church" refers popularly to the LDS Church, but there are several "Mormon churches" such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. COGDEN 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in terms of capitalization rules COGDEN is correct: it would be "Mormon Church" and "LDS Church" even as nicknames since here both Mormon and LDS make "church" something specific and a proper noun as opposed to general (the Mormon Church vs. a Mormon church). I agree with B Fizz, though, that the use of "Mormon Church" within any LDS-related article should be limited, including this one. My main point here was just making sure we were all on the same page in regards to using the two most common nicknames in the intro to make the connection for the general reader. I still run into people that do not know the "Mormon Church" and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the same organization. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I like it as it currently reads. —Eustress talk 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Commend on lead

I wanted to commend the editors of this article for maintaining an informative and neutral lead devoid of ranking-cruft and other un-encyclopedic superlatives. Truly rare to witness on Wikipedia university articles without significant arm twisting. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

BYU's Wind Symphony and Chamber Orchestra

The statement "BYU's Wind Symphony and Chamber Orchestra have toured many countries including Denmark, Hong Kong, Russia, the British Isles, and Central Europe." is mixing countries (Denmark, Russia) with regions (British Isles and Central Europe). Could someone who knows the countries visited please correct this. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Harvard of the West

Please discuss the ongoing dispute about this characterization here rather than user's talk pages or edit warring with revision comments. For the record, I believe this is nothing more than an empty WP:PEACOCK term and the contributing editor's repeated attempts to insert it into the lead of the article and reference it with a torrent of largely self-published sources belies latent boosterism. The use of these "X is the Harvard/MIT/Oxford of the Y" snowclones is manifestly unencyclopedic in tone. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all accounts. ElKevbo (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree on all accounts. I am simply stating that BYU has been referred to as the Harvard of the West, not that it actually is. I have given 6 references and there are hundreds more around the internet referring to BYU as the Harvard of the West, so it is an indisputable fact. Let's figure out a way to incorporate this idea into the article while keeping everyone happy. I have tried moving and rewording the phrase, and adding additional sources. (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There are many nicknames and phrases used to describe or refer to BYU. Are we going to gather up all the obscure references to those too? This inclusion makes it sound like the article is trying to manufacture some sort of importance, excellence, or exclusivity that doesn't exist already (which indeed is a form of boosterism). I attended BYU-Idaho and have BYU alums as friends and in my family and have never heard the school referred to as the "Harvard of the West." Simply "being on the Internet" doesn't mean a source is reliable or encyclopedic, especially if it comes from people already within BYU and/or the LDS Church. More importantly, even with the sources, this info tells us nothing about the school that we don't already know. Let the admissions facts speak for themselves. All this comparing with Harvard stuff makes the article look desperate. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a rundown of my opinion of the references the editor is pushing:
  1. "Jeffrey R. Holland: A Style All His Own" - doesn't really establish the "Harvard of the West" nickname, at most that some within BYU might have characterized a goal to improve the school as making it comparable to aspects of Harvard but nothing more and hence the use of the phrase (but not as a nickname).
  2. - personal blog, fails WP:RS
  3. The Moriah Confession - I hardly think the singular use in a work of fiction qualifies as a reliable source
  4. Tokyo South - personal website/self-published work?
  5. Deseret News article - repeat of ref. #33 and only says that BYU has a higher enrollment percentage but nothing about a "Harvard of the West" nickname
  6. Boyd K. Packer speech - uses the nickname but gives no indication of who tossed the nickname around and how prevalent it was
Only the first and last two can pass the reliable source standard. One of these doesn't even mention the nickname and the other two do nothing to support the claim that the nickname (if they mention it at all) is common, well-known, or notable. Overall I agree that it's nothing but a peacock term. It really doesn't pass the notability test - some people have also called BYU by other, less laudatory names - do we get to include those also?
Finally, @anon- - are you the same as User:BYUHater? If so, editing under another account does not allow you to get around WP:3RR. Please revert yourself and adhere to policy. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I just graduated from The University of Utah and most of my family has gone there. "Harvard of the West" is a very popular nickname around campus, Utah Valley, and Salt Lake Valley (begrudgingly so by University of Utah fans) for BYU, and easily the school's most prevalent nickname. Please stop letting your opinions and feelings interfere and let the original 2 editors add their contribution to the page. They are only stating that BYU has been referred to as the Harvard of the West, which is undeniably true regardless of a source's "validity". To prove that the school has been referred to as such does not require a valid source, any source should suffice, and 6 have been provided. How many scholarly sources discuss something as pedestrian as nicknames? I am reverting the edit again as I feel it is positioned correctly in the article and presented as a simple statement. Also, is Harvard really that great? I don't think it's necessarily a form of boosterism, as there are many superior institutions. Maybe the original editors were trying to present a common nickname? (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Google "Harvard of the West" and see what comes up. There are A LOT of universities that are called or call themselves that, Stanford being the most common. Even with reliable sources, as has been stated before, these kind of comparisons are generally boosterism. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
""Harvard of the West" is a very popular nickname around campus, Utah Valley, and Salt Lake Valley..." That pretty much sums it up. Those are areas where BYU alumni are the most concentrated, so it is no surprise such a term would be prevalent there; perhaps right alongside the "Lord's University". It would be one thing if US News & World Report, Newsweek, or some other clearly third-party, reliable sources referred to it as such, but as it stands now, the only "sources" using this nickname are those with direct connections to the school so their neutrality is certainly questionable. Outside of the Wasatch Front, if you say "Harvard of the West" Stanford is what is assumed, not BYU. Even then, it still does nothing to help the reader understand BYU better. As I said before the statistics can speak for themselves. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree as above, it's a local nickname and far from exclusive. No need to include it in an encyclopedia article. It's like every junior/community college being known as "Harvard By The Highway." Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Has BYU been referred to as a "Harvard of the west"? Yes. Does including that factoid bring any value to the article? Not really (imho); it's too boderline-sketchy-unprofessional and doesn't really have a point. I say leave it out. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


"BYU has Athletics teams in a number of different sports ranging from Men's volleyball to Women's rugby."

As a former member of the Women’s Cougar Rugby team while I am pleased whenever our team is highlighted or mentioned, I will admit that this sentence really bothers me for two reasons one personal and the other "factual"?...

Women's rugby is not a recognized BYU sport and should not be labeled as such. It's not a varsity sport, extramural sport, or official BYU club. USA rugby recognizes the team as BYU but BYU, even after years of appeals and petitions, does not nor according to the sports director will even be recognized by BYU. Just wanted to get that out there...and yes, I am still a little bitter. lol. I know the writer is trying to highlight the diversity of sports and gender but this line is misleading. Pick another sport, I hear that there is a co-ed extramural Racquetball team. lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobunkum (talkcontribs) 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your candor is appreciated.Kcchief915 (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Due to the size of this article I would reccomend that anything more than maybe a basic listing of the numbers of teams for men's and women's sports, in NCAA, extramural, intramural, and special cases like the BYU soccer team should be mentioned. Most could be covered in a seperate article with a title like Brigham Young University athletics which in turn could have BYU Cougars as a sub-article to discuss the NCAA teams and that would have specific sub-sarticles for the major sports like men's and women's volleyball, men's and women's basketball, football, golf, track and field, swimming and such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

BYU's Online School

BYU also has a distance education program for high-schoolers. They offer both online and paper/pencil courses, and these students aren't required to do anything religious. All of their courses are accredited and are generally transferable to other educational institutions. The website for it is here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Independent Study is briefly mentioned in the article but does merit expansion. —Eustress talk 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say there could be more coverage of BYU's indepdent study program. Creating a seperate article on it might be the best course, and in that case use of 3rd party sources would be reccomended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits on academic freedom, culture, etc

Eckeman (talk · contribs) has recently been adding in edits that were, for the most part, rejected a year ago, and at which time Eckeman was blocked for blatant violation of WP:3RR. The edits themselves, imo, do not meet WP:NPOV nor WP:SYNTH. For example:

  1. "It is widely known that BYU students, faculty and staff work in an environment of direct and indirect intimidation and that academic freedom is officially circumscribed"
    Completely unsourced, POV opinion at worst, at best OR reading of BYU's policy.
  2. "the quirkiness and sometimes "too nice" culture of BYU may also be due to the fact that Utah leads the nation in the use of prescription anti-depressants."
    First it's OR since the statement connects the "too nice" culture to Utah's use of anti-depressants. Second, the source is for a Utah as a state statistic, which may or may not apply to BYU - again OR. All the other stats already presented in the section are about BYU or Provo specifically, and so are directly relevant. I will also add that the original "quirkiness" statement itself is uncited POV/OR.
  3. "That said, a 1999 study by Barna Research revealed that the Mormon rate of divorce is 24%, equal to the national average."
    Pretty much same reasons as for #2 - reference is for Mormon's as a whole and not BYU in particular so not relevant.
  4. "Interestingly, Utah’s rate of forcible rape is significantly higher than the national rate, and Utah tops the nation in the number of online pornography accounts."
    Same as above, OR and not relevant to BYU since the references are for Utah in general
  5. SEI report on sustainability
    The only OR part of this is the "Despite this..." opening which implies BYU has failed to implement sustainability policies (imo, looks like the first two examples in WP:SYNTH). My main objection is probably WP:RS - the SEI report is based in large part on surveys filled out and returned by the university, and BYU didn't return any of their surveys. I'd rather rely on what BYU says they do, rather than an outside assessment based on incomplete data.

With the exception of #5, these are cut and pastes (check the access dates on the URL references) of the same edits Eckeman was unsuccessfully trying to put in a year ago. I think the same objections still apply. I hope that I've done my due diligence now in bringing to discussion these points up and my reasons for reverting. Other's thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If someone has an axe to grind, Wikipedia is not the place for it. These edits are obviously unsubstantiated and POV claims wholly tangential to writing an encyclopedia article about a university. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. As I still have RS concerns about the SEI reference, I'm going to remove that too. As I said, my main concern is that since the scores are based on voluntary surveys, the assessment is necessarily biased against those schools that did not return the surveys. Add to that the fact that filling out the survey involves a $700 dollar fee, and even if you don't fill out the survey, you get evaluated and what SEI can find on it's own. Therefore I don't think it's a sufficient RS for stating how good or bad BYU's sustainability efforts are. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If there are RS concerns about the SEI study, you may want to address it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. The SEI results are posted at many university articles, so it goes beyond just the BYU article. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I was about to write the same thing. I think WT:UNI would be the right place. I don't think the reliability of the source is in question, at least not in the sense that Wikipedia defines reliability. It seems to be more of a question of weight or notability. And it does seem to be pretty widespread; I suspect that one or more persons connected with this group has been busy adding material to many articles. ElKevbo (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say "quirkiness" is a word that violates POV whenever used. It does not seem to be appropriate for an excyclopedic tone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

September 2010 Athletics Conference Changes

It was recently announced that BYU will be moving to the West Coast Conference in all sports except for football, where the program will become independent. There need to be changes here, as well as in the article for BYU Cougars football. I thought this might be a good place to start collaborating and gathering good sources. If anyone wants to make the bold edits, go right ahead.  Amit  ►  19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think too much will change in this article, but other articles definitely will. Wrad (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Large Article, is it time to split?

This article is just barely under the 100k "split absolutely at this level" threshold. It is clearly above the 60k "it is generally good to split when above this level" thrshold. As I mentioned in a comment above, creating a sperate article for the BYU athletics section could be a good start.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you quoting from? Wrad (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article size specifically their "rule of thumb" section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
John, see just below that section, this quote: "You can find the size of a page including the markup in kilobytes [kb] from the page history, and its size in words from search (button) results including the references. In most cases these are not reliable indications on their own of whether an article should be split." Note especially the last sentence there. I think the source of our confusion is that you are counting the reference as part of the page size, which is not usually how that sort of thing is counted. See also Wikipedia:Article_size#Measuring_.22readable_prose.22_size Wrad (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So I am apparently over-estimating the size of this article for the purposes of splitting it. However, I still would say the article is on the large size and could use splitting off sections. In fact with the exitence of the article on BYU Colleges, Depeartments and Programs and the article on the BYU Cougars, we are probably in good shape to do that. I am now thinking the main issue is the athletics section. See elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is at about 48 kb readable prose. Wrad (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

BYU Education Week

I am wondering if mention of BYU Education Week would be good here, if a seperate article should be created, or if there is some other article where mention of education week would make more sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we need such a long list of alumni in the article?

Since there is a seperate article that is a list of BYU alumni, do we need so many BYU alumni listed in this article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The list length is comparable to that of other, fully-developed university articles. Wrad (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
However we are just barely below the point that is the wikipedia line of "in almost all cases cut up an article when it is this long" and well above the point of "in general articles should be cut when they reach above this length". Anyway, why do we need a fairly long list in this article when there is a seperate list, with an opening summary list of its own?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

LDS Atmosphere

I have tried to edit this section to cut down on POV and also to make it flow better. The quotes provided on the idea of "the Lord's university" are fairly old, at least the ones to establish the notion. The book referenced as an attack on this view is a very snarky book published in the mid-1990s by people who were ardent partisans of those who had been removed from BYU for various issues possibly including those related to the fact that some of these people had openly taught things against the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For this reason the whole discussion of what it means to be "the Lord's university" might well fit better under the heading of "Academic Freedom". I have tried to make the passage more precise, and at the same time avoid the virtual acceptance that the claims of those who attacked the phrase were right. The more I think about it, the more I think the discussion of the phrase "the Lord's university" should be moved to the article on academic freedom at BYU. Of course at some level this is motivated by the fact that this article is right on the threshold of being too large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Only one sentence of that paragraph cites that book. The rest of the citations are all very pro-Mormon. I'm not sure I understand the sentiment here, or the feeling that the article is too large. Perhaps that would be a good way to start the discussion? Is the article too large or not? I think the Athletics section definitely needs work, but let's take it slow, here. Wrad (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, as I mentioned above their is the guideline on size. There is also the fact that it takes a while for my computer to process after I hit save on an edit due to the article size. I may be over-reacting to the both the phrase and the book, but this is in part because I have read it and know how totally snarky it is. I still would say that questions of how willing people are to challenge authority seem more apropriate under the heading of academic freedom than under the heading of "LDS atmosphere".John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the paragraph as a whole is not snarky at all. Have you read the other sources it cites? I really think the dominant discussion there is LDS life, not academic freedom. Wrad (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The mission of an institution is always in some way "percieved". Saying something is the "percieved mission" is not informative. Institutions are not sentient beings, however the people who control the institution are in general right as to what its mission is, so saying such a mission is "percieved" makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe so. I'll concede on that one. Wrad (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Seperate BYU Cougars article created, need to figure what to do here

I have created a seperate BYU Cougars article. I have added a few new points of information not found here, and it probably could be expanded even more, especially with a specific discussion of the history of BYU athletics. The big question now is what amount of the present section on athletics needs to be retained. The cited above standard on article length would suggest some sort of trimming of that section could be helpful. However, at the same time it is hard to decide how much. My guess would be maybe we do not need such an indepth coverage of football figures in this article. With both the BYU Cougars and BYU Cougars Football articles now in existence, it seems we could have a minimal coverage of that in this article. The multiple lists of players seems a bit overdone there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

John, I like this idea. I do think we need to trim the Athletics section. I have my eye more on the "Other sports section. However, let's talk about length for a second here before we start cutting things. See my response above. Wrad (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A first might be looking at trimming the discussion of BYU's non-NCAA hockey team. The discussion of the non-NCAA hockey team is much longer and more in-depth than of the NCAA elite 8 making women's soccer team, which is hardly given two sentances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Theory of evolution

Do they teach that theory of evolution is wrong?-- (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, but this is a place for discussing the article, not BYU in general. Wrad (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Facts / NCES information disparity

While I am not attempting to discredit either source, the National Center for Education Statistics has conflicting information with Y Facts, one of the sources cited. The DOE site has 34,130 as the total enrolled for 2009 while Y Facts has 32,955 as the total enrolled. This is probably because Y Facts only counts day-time enrollment. I am changing the source to NCES, since this counts both night-time and day-time enrollment.Nbstandiford (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Princeton Review LGBT ranking

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)

Problem with Statistics

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)

marriage average isn't updated and probably wrong

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)

Conflict with "Harold B Lee Library" wiki

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)

I know I'm coming into this post over a year late, but I've restored the wording in the introduction to read that BYU is indeed the third largest private and largest religious university in the U.S. For backing up the claim of "Third Largest," I went with the original source link, which had never been removed, but which previous post-ers here questioned as "obviously incorrect." But that statement itself is obviously incorrect. "" makes clear on their page outlinging their methodology ( that they get their data by compiling it from an array of major sources. These sources are:

US News & World Report,

Princeton Review,


Washington Monthly,

Wall Street Journal,

Business Week, and

If that isn't a reliable list, then I don't know what else could possibly be reliable or relevant. For the claim that BYU is the largest religious institution, I think we need to understand that EVERY University is playing by their own rules. ElKevbo cited Liberty University as being bigger, but a cursory glance at their page shows that they include online enrollment in their statistics--something that BYU and many other institutions do not do. I actually called the BYU stats department to find out why this was, and was told that it was because it is not a Federal requirement. Not to say that it is against the guidelines, but it is not required either. So those other religious institutions are (fairly) gaming the system. Boots on the ground, BYU is far larger. I did go back and make reference to BYU's online program in general, because there are places where its programs are spoken of in broad terms. From what I can tell, if BYU were to take the time to publish the numbers, it might very well blow its competition out of the water in the Virtual Realm as well. Playerpage (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Inscape (journal) to Brigham Young University

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)

As there has been no objection, I will merge now. Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, 10 hours later it was deemed not notable enough and removed. Then why hasn't the original article, which now is a useless redirect, been deleted? --Xario (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution

Philo Taylor Farnsworth is not an alumnus of BYU and did not receive a B.S. from the institution. (As stated in the longer, more detailed list of alumni.) I do not know what your source for such a claim would be. He may have received an honorary Doctorate degree from BYU in 1968, just a few years before his death, but back when he was first living in Provo in 1923-24, and doing his early work on television, he attended Brigham Young High School. He did enroll at BYU later, but the professors at BYU would not allow him to attend the university advanced courses he wanted to, and they did not recognise his previous course work. (He had already attended high school in Idaho, and done correspondence classes at the University of Utah) In fact, he had such a low regard for his professors, and they paid so little attention to him, that he soon became impatient with his whole setup at BYU, and he joined the Navy on a whim. This decision was short-lived, because he worried over patent rights to his inventions. He later returned to BYU again, but left after attending the university for only a single year, without graduating. Of course, after his reputation grew, BYU was more than happy to turn around and claim him.

As for the softer claim in the wiki article (under "notable research & awards") that he "received his education at BYU," this too is misleading, for the reasons stated above. He may have been at the university for a year, but he already established his television theories in high school in Idaho, and his first university course work was "correspondence," at the University of Utah. If anything (if they bothered to listen to him) he would have educated his BYU professors.

I say this without any malice toward BYU. I am a BYU alumnus myself. But the representation of Philo Farnsworth as a BYU alumnus is simply not true and I believe the site should be edited to reflect that. I know this as not only a Farnsworth biographer, but also a member of his family (his grand-nephew). The information I have on his life is from his wife's biography and summarized here: ( Playerpage (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the word "alumnus" could mean either graduate or former student. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, an alumnus or alumna is either someone who has attended the school (or a "former student of a school") or someone who has graduated from the school. ( Wikipedia has similar definition. "An alumnus (masculine, plural alumni) or alumna (feminine, plural alumnae) is a former student or pupil of a school, college, or university. Commonly, but not always, the word refers to a graduate of the educational institute in question. An alumnus can also be a former member, employee, contributor, or inmate, as well as a former student. ( As such, using the term alumnus in reference to Philo Farnsworth is technically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurisdicta (talkcontribs) 23:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brigham Young University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brigham Young University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)