Talk:Liberty University

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

Updated acceptance rate[edit]

The acceptance rate on US News & World Report is listed as 20.2%. I updated the page accordingly: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Outdated Article[edit]

This article, particularly the section on Main, East and North Campus, is SEVERELY outdated. There are several things missing such as two new dorm buildings (Commons I and II), a new School of Religion building (the Freedom Tower), an expansion of the DeMoss building (the DeMoss Student Center), and several new practice facilities on North Campus (including a new indoor track and a new indoor football practice facility). -- Super3588 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to provide the necessary updates, with references. Rytyho usa (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
When I have some time, I will. To be clear, I don't have to use a news article as a reference, do I? I can use regular pages from the website that aren't password-protected? -- Super3588 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Two-piece requested edit[edit]

I've just gotten a job offer from Liberty, so I suppose I'm ending up in the COI category as far as this article goes.

Please shorten the "Controversy" section by deleting two of the subsections, "1994 debt buy-out" and "Support of concealed carry permits". Neither one even mentions any controversy: the first one simply says that Unification Church-related entities provided financing to the university, and the second mentions the school's position on concealed carry. Absent controversy, these appear to be minor elements of the institution's history, bits not really worth mentioning, and non-controversial stuff doesn't belong in Controversy. If there's been significant resistance to either one (something in which the university's gotten firm opposition, comparable to what it got with the 1989 bond issue or to the teaching of creationism), third-party coverage could be added (not merely a blog by a few people protesting, but bring in legal difficulties or criticism from eminent people in the relevant fields), but since at this point nobody's added something of that sort, both need to be removed from the article.

And finally, while you're at it, you might as well throw in a spelling fix; the article has one mention of "Candlers Mountain" and one of "Candler's Mountain", but the official name (see [1]) is merely "Candler Mountain", so please change both of these appearances to "Candler Mountain". Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The second controversy is sourced. See ref 158 which discusses the publicity/media response itself. The controversy wasn't that the president is pro-CC, it was that he insinuated that he wanted students to use the guns to keep Muslims out of the school (even though he was talking about terrorists, he referred to them as "Muslims"). I'll change the header to represent what the uproar was actually about.
The buyout appears to be controversial only within the university itself, and the only source is highly involved in the buyout (The founder of Washington Post was the buyer). I'm not sure if that counts, and I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to help the consensus there.
Lastly, COI doesn't apply to minor edits like spelling fixes, so don't worry about it! I know you're an admin, but just to be sure: WP:COIU Jergling (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, since you're going beyond the basic requested-edit process, no complaints; just please remove bits specifically about concealed-carry, e.g. the class to obtain the permit, since your words make it seem as if only elements related to the president's comment attracted opposition. And please add information about who objected, e.g. Governor McAuliffe (his statement appears in reference #158), because complaints by folks in the media aren't particularly relevant. Given your words that the buyout wasn't externally controversial (it hardly sounds like something that would have attracted tons of interest from folks like Governor McAuliffe or Richard Dawkins), it needs to be removed, unless someone finds contradictory evidence; irrelevant information needs to be chopped, regardless of whether it's sourced. Finally, yes I remember about minor edits; I just felt lazy :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I also have a conflict of interest (I'm a student at Liberty.), though I have edited the article and added uncontroversial facts.
Now that I have that out of the way: Jergling, for information about sources involved in an incident, see the essay WP:THIRDPARTY. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Way ahead of you on the concealed carry red herring, Nyttend. I'm not really sure why people thought that was relevant. WRT the media response, I think the governor's statement is relevant but I'm not in a position to make thorough, encyclopedic edits at this time (just patrolling in between small tasks at work). I'll come back later and fill that in, but I can handle cutting out the Buyout section. I'd be surprised if anyone took you to wiki-court over that! Jergling (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Please note that the US News & World Report is not always a good source for financials since they often cite those from wikipedia. In this case it is quite possible that they cited the 1 billion figure from an old version of this page. To be clear Liberty University has assets of just over $1 billion, but that is not the same thing as an 'endowment'. RioDevez (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. However, here is an article from USA Today from 2013 stating that the endowment had just cleared over $1 billion. How should we handle this? Is there a total assets valuation field in the infobox? Wolfy54 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how endowment or total assets or whatever works, but the place to check about a |totalassets= parameter in the template (or something similar) would be here, Wolfy54, where you can see every parameter the infobox allows. That is, you can if the documentation has been kept up-to-date. Gestrid (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Quiz bowl[edit]

Anyone mind removing the quiz bowl team from the Athletics section? They're no more athletic than is a video-game team (see e-sports), so they don't belong in that section any more than a video-game team would belong in a section on academics. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done yes; as stated in my edit summary the rationale and qualifier in article states: it is the"varsity sport of the mind" = there could be an argument for possibly adding to the section: Debate and Forensics Speech (and Quiz Bowl). Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 17:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)