Talk:Liberty University/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RfC: Is a John Lofton's American View material suitable for inclusion?

There is a clear consensus to omit the highlighted text from the article. And the removal was already done in this edit. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Debate section of this article contain the highlighted text below? Roccodrift (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Debate

Liberty's Inter-Collegiate policy debate program, formerly led by Brett O'Donnell, was number one in the overall rankings Championships in the National Debate Tournament for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The overall rankings include varsity, junior varsity, and novice results. In varsity rankings, Liberty finished 20th in 2005, 17th in 2006, 24th in 2007, 12th in 2008, 9th in 2009, 4th in 2010 and 4th in 2011. Liberty also hosts the Virginia High School League's annual Debate State Championships every April.

John Lofton of The American View Christian radio show accused Liberty University of not being "a truly Christian college" when Jerry Falwell gave permission for the debate team to debate in favor of abortion when required.[7] The issue arose when the team was faced with the need to argue for abortion rights or give up the debate program for that year.

  1. ^ National Debate Tournament Spring 2005 Report National Debate Tournament, 2005. (MS Word file)
  2. ^ National Debate Tournament Spring 2006 Report National Debate Tournament, 2006. (MS Word file)
  3. ^ National Debate Tournament Spring 2007 Report National Debate Tournament, 2007 (MS Word file)
  4. ^ National Debate Tournament Spring 2009 Report National Debate Tournament, 2009. (MS Word file)
  5. ^ National Debate Tournament Spring 2010 Report National Debate Tournament, 2010. (MS Word file)
  6. ^ National Debate Tournament Spring 2011 Report National Debate Tournament, 2011. (MS Word file)
  7. ^ A Truly Christian College Would Teach Biblical Defense Of The Faith Not "Debate" As A Game John Lofton, The American View, 2006

Survey

Omit the Lofton piece and related discussion in the article. No one has presented any compelling information that shows that Lofton's opinion is inherently noteworthy, is shared by others, or has resulted in any action on anyone's part therefore including it in this or any other article gives it undue weight. ElKevbo (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Omit Lofton's opinion because it fails to meet the threshold of a "significant viewpoint", as required by WP:UNDUE. Roccodrift (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep Lofton is "an American conservative political commentator and editor of The American View radio program". He's a pundit and journalist, so his opinion is inherently noteworthy and significant. The New York Times and Boston Globe also covered the issue of the debate team having to argue in favor of abortion, showing that the incident itself is notable. Please note that there is no requirement in policy for Lofton's view to be shared by anyone else; that is a red herring that we must disregard as irrelevant. I'll also note that this is valid criticism that WP:NPOV does not allow us to censor. MilesMoney (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Omit Lofton's opinion on Liberty University because he and his opinion fail to meet the requirements for notability and violate WP:UNDUE. Wolfy54 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you bringing up WP:UNDUE, as others have. Would you consider explaining precisely why you believe it's undue? I ask because it's not self-evident. Lofton is a public figure speaking within his area of expertise, so I would think that this would suffice to make the criticism notable. MilesMoney (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Omit -- The non-notable comment by a non-notable host on a non-notable radio station with a citation to a primary source. I also object to the deceptive Easter egg wikilink for the American View show that appears in the sentence.--KeithbobTalk 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Omit Explained further in the above and below comments. Non notable source, non notable comment. The validity of the comment and the worthiness for inclusion are not things that can be determined mathematically but common sense, (at least by my definition), dictates this section go. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I was going to do this, but not quite this way as the issue is whether John Lofton's comment should be included at all, not necessarily as part of the debate section. The quote comes from this page. The New York Times article is at [1]. It's also mentioned here. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have said that I would have worded it differently, eg "Should a comment by John Lofton be included in the article?" This avoids specifying where, as well as the use of the word 'blog' - it is of course his blog, but the issue isn't that it's a blog but whether his opinion should be included. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where Lofton is mentioned in either the NYT or Boston Globe articles. Can you please help me find it? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The 'debate', sorry, not Lofton. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Then I'm afraid that I don't see how those publications are germane to this discussion. The question on the table is the inclusion of the Lofton piece and associated material, not the general issue of inclusion of the debate team in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's context. The Lofton piece mentions the NYT article, so it seems obviously relevant. I think the BG article is also - if you don't see that, you don't see that, but I do. It's about the debate team arguing for abortion if required to. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. We don't consider an opinion piece to be more noteworthy just because it mentions a NYT or Boston Globe article. It works the other way around: If the NYT or Boston Globe discussed Lofton's opinion or his piece then that would be evidence that it's noteworthy and something we should include in an encyclopedia.
So again (for the fifth time?) I ask: What evidence is there that this opinion piece is so noteworthy that it should be explicitly discussed in an encyclopedia article? ElKevbo (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again you've misunderstood me (where have I mentioned noteworthy, or anything for or against keeping this, in this thread?). I've posted here only to provide the link for Lofton, the NYT article he refers to, and just because I found it and it seems relevant, the BG article. This is an RfC, let's see what others have to say. If I feel like it, I may say more, but not because I'm being questioned over and over again. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Dougweller, you're getting questioned over and over because you've been dodging questions about how your edits comport with Wikipedia policy. So far, the crux of your position seems to be that Lofton's blog is a RS for Lofton's opinion, so therefore the material is suitable for inclusion. But you have studiously avoided the matters of due weight and relevance. You steadfastly refuse to address the most basic question, "Why does Lofton matter?" You're stonewalling. (Impertinent of me to express it this way. Sorry.)

Those articles don't strengthen your case; they weaken it. Here we see coverage in two major news sources, and neither of them contain a mention or even a hint of agreement with Lofton's views. It's obvious that the bombastic Lofton is an outlier, and doesn't represent the required "significant viewpoint". Roccodrift (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As usual, your reasoning eludes me. The fact that two other reliable sources noted the odd situation about the debate team being forced to argue in favor of abortion shows that it's not some fine point that Lofton picked up on but nobody else cared about. I have no idea why you imagine that Lofton's point has to be repeated by other to be significant. Is there a policy behind this or did you make it up? MilesMoney (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
But that's not Lofton's point or even a point of discussion here. Lofton's point is that this situation is evidence that Liberty University is not (as) Christian as it claims to be. That is why this material is included in this article and why it is at all interesting. Without that claim - which appears to be only be Lofton's and as such is such a tiny minority view that it's not something to be included in an encyclopedia - it's completely trivial and not worth noting since it's totally routine and expected that debate teams prepare both sides of a debate. ElKevbo (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Being expected to debate any side of an issue is normal; the expectation that a truly Christian college would disallow the pro-abortion side is, well, unexpected. The Globe and Times show that the issue of debating in favor of abortion is notable, and Lofton is an example of how this incident was viewed by other conservatives. His view is in itself notable; I have no idea where you get the notion that it's a "minority" view. In fact, I'm not even sure what it's a minority 'of'. You seem to be using it purely as a slur to discredit Lofton, but that goes against our sources, which show him to be a journalist and pundit. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll repeat myself - " This sort of one person comment is common in articles and expecting, for instance, it to be met by actions or changes (or to say it should only be included if others say the same thing) is unreasonable. If Lofton had no article I'd probably agree with you, but he does so he is notable by our criteria, right?" This is simply my opinion, hopefully the RfC will show if others share it. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? You're an admin and that is your argument?
Do I really have to explain to you that what's been done in other articles makes absolutely no difference whatsoever?
OK, here it is again, the thing you need to address... here is the section of a Wikipedia core policy that you (an admin, who should know better) have been ignoring: WP:NPOV
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
Thus far, you haven't even attempted to explain how Lofton's blog piece meets that threshold. Lofton's attainment of basic notability for a Wikipedia article is meaningless here. We do not enshrine every pronouncement of every person who has a bio on Wikipedia simply because we carry a bio on them.
We've asked you repeatedly: "Why does Lofton matter?" What makes the opinion of John Lofton significant? And you are still dodging that question. Why wouldn't you address it, unless the reason is that you simply don't have an answer. And if you don't have an answer, then you are simply being obstructionist. Roccodrift (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This question has been answered repeatedly. Ignoring an answer does not prevent it from existing. MilesMoney (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV and lead

See WP:LEAD - the attempt to keep any controversies out of the lead - which seems to be mainly by SPAs, violations both our guideline on leads and NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The main argument is Relative Emphasis. Your counter was that a controversy should be included in the lead. I argued that the addition of a controversy in the lead was unusual for a College and University stub. But the main argument is still Relative Emphasis. Liberty is a very large university with 148 areas of study. To single out the curriculum of one area of study for the lead (even if it is controversial and wrong) violates Relative Emphasis, and breaks with the usual College and University stub. YEC is not even a trait that Liberty is well-known for outside of science academia; for instance, it is not mentioned in the lengthy Washington Post article from last year. Liberty is not the only university to have strange curriculum. It is well-handled and fine in the body of the article, where it belongs.Wolfy54 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you quote the guideline that mentions relative emphasis? Please note what I've written - there are no controversies mentioned in the lead. 'Unusual' doesn't mean that they should be kept out of the lead. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD ("Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.")? This is not an expression of an opinion about the topic under discussion – just a pointer to the policy that I think is being invoked here. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean no controversies should be mentioned (and I know you aren't suggesting that). I'm not arguing for the creationist stuff, just saying that keeping all controversy out of the lead is probably inappropriate for this specific university. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the inclusion of that subject in the lead is entirely warranted and appropriate. There are not many universities, especially ones so large, that offer science programs teaching intelligent design. I disagree that its inclusion in the lead would represent undue emphasis. Rytyho usa (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That is the policy to which I was referring, and that is still my main argument. I agree that controversies may be appropriate in the lead of articles, but I think it is undue in this instance for the reasons outlined above. Wolfy54 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Please remove the NPOV tag at the top of the article. I don't think it is relevant or necessary, and it has been there for over a month.Wolfy54 (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Creationism

Can someone please elaborate what exactly Liberty University is teaching as creationism? Seems a rather short subject. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Liberty 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To prevent a Jihad attack, President Jerry Falwell, Jr, supports arming 14,000 students/staff/faculty

This is not an unreasonable statement. He knows not everyone there will adhere.

Headline-1: LIBERTY PRESIDENT CALLS FOR AN ARMED CHRISTIAN CAMPUS

QUOTE: "Let's teach them a lesson if they ever show up here." -- AstroU (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI, New NEWS today, for future editing.

Liberty University in politics

Trump is appealing to both Democrats and Republicans.

Headline-1: Donald Trump to speak at Liberty University

Subtitle quotes: "Venue is popular with Republican presidential candidates; Trump last spoke at the school in 2012." -- AstroU (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Liberty 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

New Dorms

I put an "outdated" tag on the Main, East, and North Campus section a while back (later updating it to December 2015). New Dorms named Commons I and Commons II have been completed on Main Campus next door to the Vines Center. I do not have the time to find source articles or make the necessary changes to the page, even though I go there. I know "personal experience" is not something I can cite. It would be wonderful if someone could update the article. I believe it mentions plans to build new dorms, and the two 8-story (9 counting the Resident Director apartments on the top floor) are those new dorms. The second of the two was just finished over this Christmas Break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super3588 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Updated acceptance rate

The acceptance rate on US News & World Report is listed as 20.2%. I updated the page accordingly: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/liberty-university-10392 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.123.95 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Outdated Article

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


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 [2]) 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)

Endowment

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. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/14/liberty-university/2764789/ 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


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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Enrollment

How should the enrollment of Liberty University be described in the lede? There are currently around 15000 students at the physical campus in Lynchburg, Virginia. The other 100,000 students are "online" students. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I note the Chronicle of Higher Education as a generally neutral source regarding universities. However, I don't have a subscription and can't read any of the (several) articles they have regarding Liberty's online classes. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question or the underlying concern. It's essential to note the number of online students in the lead because it's a defining characteristic of this university. It's also important to note the number of on-campus students, too. We can't simply lump them together, however; they're both important populations but they're also distinct. ElKevbo (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The underlying concern is that "Liberty University (also referred to as Liberty or LU) is a private, non-profit Christian research university located in Lynchburg, Virginia, United States." The first paragraph should at least mention the number of students located in Lynchburg, Virginia; or else the first sentence should be re-written to mention the online element of the institution. Power~enwiki (talk)
I think that either suggested approach would be fine. The first suggestion would be more in line with most other college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. I've attempted a new version. It still needs copy-editing. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
How are other universities handling this issue? Most don't even differentiate between online or on campus, from what I can tell. Almost every college and university now has fully online degrees and courses though. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Good question. I would be surprised if there is any consistency about how we handle this across articles. I imagine that is largely because (a) online only students are a minority at most colleges and universities and (b) it's a relatively new phenomenon so not only are we way behind in recognizing this culturally (many people still think that most college students are young, full-time students living on campus!) but many of our data collection efforts and sources have been slow to begin collecting and displaying these data. It's certainly not easily accessible information in the national data system (IPEDS) and in fact there has been controversy about how ED has tried to collect these data.
However, we do have good information about this particular university and it's a critical fact that readers must be told about. It is one of the defining characteristics of this university hence it belongs in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

New Motto

Somebody needs to add the new motto "We The Champions" not sure who keeps removing it, but it is the school's new motto. This was announced during the first convocation of the year 2017-2018 and clearly marked on the upper left side of their website. In addition to social media and multiple sections their website.

The current issue is AlaskanNativeRU whoever it is keeps reversing it. I am 100% aware and have verifiable sources this is the new motto. They just started a marketing campaign to promote the new motto in August of 2017. Not sure who that individual is, but they apparently are either vandalizing intentionally or have no idea what they are talking about. I have reported this individual to Wikipedia and awaiting a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C6:8300:2721:A406:281C:CC22:2BE2 (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a different between a marketing campaign and the official motto of the school. Per the source listed in the article - https://www.liberty.edu/aboutliberty/?PID=6925 , the official motto is stated as "Knowledge Aflame". If you continue to ignore this your edits will be reverted. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

WRONG. They are phasing into this new motto. The marketing campaign is to promote the new motto. I am done discussing this with you. We will let Wikipedia decide what will happen with you next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C6:8300:2721:DE4:358:A53C:BAB8 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)