Talk:Liberty University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Ranking Status?

The U.S. News & World Report ranked Liberty University 80th in the 2012 edition of Best Colleges of Regional Universities in the South. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingram12 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

1972 Securities and Exchange Commission investigation

The SEC investigation section does not enrich the content of this article. It simply says that the church that started Liberty University was charged by the SEC but exonerated in court. It reduces the quality of the main article by being useless information on an ineffectual court case. What information does this add to the article? Wolfy54 (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am moving the SEC investigation section to the Thomas Road Baptist Church page since it was the church that was investigated and charged and not Lynchburg Baptist College.Wolfy54 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Ross under Biology and Fossils in the Controversies section

I am moving the Marcus Ross section to Ross's own Wikipedia article since the paragraph is about him and not Liberty University. In university articles, professors and faculty are generally not mentioned or simply contain a link to that person's page. I am not changing the contents of the article.Wolfy54 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins and Liberty University

Why is a critique from Richard Dawkins on the Liberty University page? It expresses his personal view on the quality of Liberty University's academics and is not a fact about Liberty. It is opinion and) is POV in nature. I am removing it. Wolfy54 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC

A brief quote from one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologist is quite appropriate and relevant in the context of that section of the article. Wikipedia editors have to strive for a neutral point of view; Dr. Dawkins is under no such restriction. ElKevbo (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clearer in the description of the original edits. We are in complete agreement on Dr. Dawkins' credentials as a world expert in evolutionary biology. Had he kept his critique to the biology department, this quote would be more appropriate. However, when he clearly advocates for all students from all departments to leave the university based on the teaching of one subject of one department, his comment becomes inflammatory. He also leaves his expertise of evolutionary biology and becomes a critic of academic institutions, of which he is not an expert. Additionally, outside commentary is not included in the wikipedia guide to college and university pages, as well as on wikipedia examples of well-written college and university pages, regardless of how controversial the topic. This comment should be removed. Wolfy54 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

While the comment would be inappropriate if it were placed in the lead, it certainly is relevant and and appropriate in this section. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 17:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Liberty University Page Re-organization

I am going to re-organize the Liberty University page so that it conforms more to the suggested article structure from the College and University Article Guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines ). Right now I won't change any content but will just change the order of the sections and probably combine a few. Once there is a proper article structure in place, then I will try to remove repetitive information within each section without changing the overall content.Wolfy54 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't this belong in the article?

RICO Lawsuit

In August 2012, Liberty University School of Law, along with Christian Aid Ministries, Thomas Road Baptist Church and others, were named in a civil lawuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by Janet Jenkins. The suit alleges that the parties named aided Lisa Miller to abduct her daughter. The lawsuit stated that "“Lisa Miller’s attorneys Mathew Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen also routinely instructed their Law School students that the correct course of action for a person in Lisa Miller’s situation would be to engage in ‘civil disobedience’ and defy court orders.” Mathew Staver, who is Dean of the Law School, was quoted as saying "The lawsuit is outrageously frivolous. It's filled with lies, misinformation. It is frivolous.T"<ref>{{cite web|last=Montgomery|first=Peter|title=Pastor Convicted in Lisa Miller Child Kidnapping Case|url=http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/petermontgomery/6286/pastor_convicted_in_lisa_miller_child_kidnapping_case/|publisher=Religion Dispatches|accessdate=16 August 2012|date=August 15, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Schapiro|first=Jeff|title=Christian Law School Accused of Taking Part in 'Kidnapping' Conspiracy|url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-law-school-accused-of-taking-part-in-kidnapping-conspiracy-80072/|accessdate=16 August 2012|newspaper=The Christian Post|date=August 15, 2012}}</ref>

The edit summary removing it said it is about the individual not the school and belongs in the Liberty Counsel article. But it is the school that is named in the lawsuit as the sources show, and if Liberty Counsel isn't actually named in the lawsuit it doesn't belong there. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I am going to revert (to the version that included the remarks critical of the lawsuit). I don't want to get into a revert war, but I think this does relate to the school, not to the other organization.--Mark Asread (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to the San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, it has quoted the case documents to say "Based on the foregoing, all of the Defendants named herein, in both their individual capacities and as agents of TRBC, Liberty University Law School, Response Unlimited, Inc., and CAM are liable for conspiring with Lisa Miller and with each other to kidnap Isabella Miller-Jenkins, assure her continued detention outside the State of Vermont, and for conspiring with Kenneth Miller to participate in the affairs of the Beachy Amish-Mennonite Brotherhood through a pattern of racketeering activity." Thus, Liberty University has not been named, the LU School of Law has. AhmedAdoudi (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegations in a civil lawsuit are not fact and should not be treated as such. Furthermore, any organizations may be named in a civil lawsuit regardless of the merits and evidence of the case, and regardless of if the case will be heard in court. At this point in the process, this topic should be shelved otherwise it becomes a newspaper story and not encyclopedic.

Additionally, the lawsuit's statements against Mathew Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen are also not considered facts at this point as no evidence has been submitted to support the allegations. Even if the statement is true, this is a superfluous addition as discussions of civil disobedience is a hallmark among universities and is not noteworthy.Wolfy54 (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wolfy54. If there is significant coverage of the lawsuit by reliable, notable sources would probably warrant some sort of mention in this article. But the sources submitted so far don't reach that bar and without such coverage almost certainly we shouldn't be including civil lawsuits in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I take your point about coverage, but I hope that you don't agree with what Wolfy54 seems to be saying, which would be that even if covered by say the NYTimes we shouldn't mention it because allegations aren't evidence and no matter what it's not noteworthy. That isn't the way we work, we don't decide what is noteworthy or say that we can't report allegations no matter what. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not about coverage, it is about fact. All someone has done so far is say someone did something. If we include everything someone says about a University in their articles, they would be huge and full of opinion and inaccuarate information. That is all this is right now is someone's opinion. Until it is tried and actual evidence is provided and a guilty verdict is handed down to the school itself, it should not be included in this article. It is all about the facts. Chris1834 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct. If the NYT covers this then we would probably want to mention the fact that this issue drew national attention. That doesn't necessarily mean that we would have to go into any detail about the allegations in the lawsuit but that would be a judgment call made in a very specific, hypothetical example. ElKevbo (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by correct. If this gets high profile, we don't have to wait until there's a verdict to mention it in the article so long as we meet WP:NPOV. That's not the way Wikipedia works. If the NYT covers it today, we would probably mention that. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; that was my fault for not being more clear. My "correct" was a response to your implied question about whether I don't completely agree with Wolfy54 in that we don't have to wait until a case is decided before including it in an article. We may decide to not include information about a case until it's decided and we may decide to not include information about it at all but those judgments are made in a context larger than just "Has the case been decided?" including an analysis of the coverage of the case by second parties. We're on the same page. ElKevbo (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for the clarification. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The key phrase I have read so far is "discussions of civil disobedience is a hallmark among universities and is not noteworthy." If we look at all the other institution pages (i.e. Harvard, Yale, Stanford), none of their "controversies" are listed on their pages. And they shouldn't be. For example, no one is listing Peter Singer in a "controversy" section on the Princeton page, and he has made some highly controversial claims in his writings and course teachings (infanticide and euthanasia). Academia has always been the historical place for controversial opinions and actions. To list every single time an academic institution takes a controversial stance would cause Wikipedia articles to become tediously long and counterproductive according to their purposes within the scope of general encyclopedic entries. AhmedAdoudi (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the key word is "lawsuit". You are raising a different issue. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Lawsuits" are not an unexpected byproduct of "controversies" or "civil disobedience." A man just filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Harvard, and both Harvard and Princeton are currently being investigated by the US DOE for discrimination against Asian Americans for undergrad admission. Those are but two examples of the (assumed) many examples of all pending lawsuits/allegations against all institutions nationwide. Neither of those are mentioned on Harvard's page, and they shouldn't be for reasons stated above. Please don't obfuscate the issue with semantics. AhmedAdoudi (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

They aren't mentioned on Harvard's page because they didn't get much media attention. The latest I can find for the DOE investigation is several months ago. I can't even find the sexual harassment lawsuit either. If any of these hit the media nationwide I wouldn't be surprised to find them on Harvard and Princeton's articles. And if this issue with Liberty Law School hits the media nationwide, it will merit a mention here. As for your charge I was obfuscating, I suggest you read WP:AGF. You didn't mention the lawsuit and I actually thought you were changing the subject slightly and didn't see the relevance as no one was suggesting that we should mention it because someone or something (I'm not clear what you have in mind) was taking a controversial chance. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

AhmedAdoudi is not really raising a different issue as 1/3 of the proposed paragraph directly discusses the civil disobedience issue, which is taken from the lawsuit itself. If I am reading it correctly, it appears that AhmedAdoudi is arguing that it is not encyclopedic to discuss all controversial stances taken by members of a university; individual thought is encouraged in all university academic settings and that common trait necessarily makes this instance not noteworthy. Even having this idea challenged in court is not new to the academic setting. Most universities stand behind the right of their professors to argue controversial and independent ideas, regardless of the university's institutional position. If the paragraph is included in the Liberty University article in the future, that portion should be omitted as being superfluous to the issue of the lawsuit. Also, the fact that something did or did not get much media attention does not make it encyclopedic; this is not a newspaper. Even if the Harvard or Princeton examples above made it to major media outlets, I would be very surprised to see them on Wikipedia and they would quickly (and rightly) be removed by editors WP:NOTNEWSPAPER .Wolfy54 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said "no matter what it's not noteworthy" or that we have to wait until the case is decided. I only said that it is still VERY early in the process to consider this issue as encyclopedic. As it currently stands, it is only uncorroborated allegations in a civil lawsuit. Major media markets are not immune to sensational stories, and should be considered as only one part of the whole decision of inclusion (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). "As it currently stands", this issue is not noteworthy and should be shelved.Wolfy54 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that as it stands it isn't noteworthy. I'm not convinced by the argument that a major media scandal wouldn't end up in a university's article. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052200793.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

1994 Debt buy-out

I should have phrased my deletion description better; it should have read: "Removed debt buy-out as only founding endowments are included in university entries and individual contributions outside of endowments are never included." This would have been more accurate. No other university page has this type of information on it. More importantly, it is not included in the Wikipedia guidelines for colleges and universities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines). Furthermore, why is this "not typical"? Private universities receive private donations every day of every year and they (rightfully) do not make Wikipedia. This section should not be included as it is superfluous and contains no encyclopedic information.Wolfy54 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very wary of editors removing embarrassing or controversial material from articles about their employer or alma mater but I agree that this information doesn't seem to be very interesting or useful for readers. If this material is important then that importance is not explained in the current version of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

ElKevo, please assume good faith. I grant you this assumption, and I would appreciate it in return. There is nothing in my editing history that is suggestive of anything other than good faith with my editing.Wolfy54 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable edit backed by solid Wikipedia principles. These historically ultra right wing pages get edited emotionally so frequently (from both sides of the argument) that it's refreshing to see Wolfy54's measured response to the accusatory tone taken by ElKevbo. Here's to civility, the assumption of good faith, and a neutral point of view even when it's about a possibly incendiary subject (anything tied to Jerry Falwell). Coerver (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is anyone reading ElKevbo's comments as lacking good faith? We should always be wary of anyone associated with a subject removing controversial material. My concern is in part about the use of the guideline to suggest that a topic not mentioned in the guideline should not be in an article covered by the guideline. That simply isn't the case and should not be used as a reason to remove this. And I'm sorry, but I don't know how anyone could know that something isn't mentioned in any of our many articles about universities - there must be thousands of such articles. It isn't typical because ordinary debt by-outs don't get this amount of publicity or require a statement from the university's founder. I think the only Wikipedia principle that is clearly relevant is WP:NPOV, probably specifically WP:UNDUE, and although that's been hinted at by ElKovbo no one has mentioned it specifically. I very much appreciate this is being discussed, but I really want it agreed that material should not be removed simply because it isn't mentioned in the guidelines. I've raised that issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, others may wish to go to WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is shouldn't be removed because of the absence of a topic in a Wikiproject guideline. Content insertion and removal should be decided based on its appropriateness in the context of the topic of the article itself. I'm not sure how this debt buy-out information improves the understanding the topic of Liberty University. If anything, it seems more appropriate as a brief mention in the history section, at least in the context of overcoming financial difficulties, but I'm still not sure that wouldn't constitute undue weight. Someone with more expertise on Liberty's history would have to weigh in as to whether or not that would be the case. As far as it being controversial, the debt buyout only seems controversial to a portion of the university's own constituents, not with society at large, as no ethical or legal lines seem to have been crossed. I see no problem with leaving it in or out, but I can easily see how UNDUE, SCOPE, or POV could warrant its removal. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point Dougweller, and will consider it in future edits. I have added my point of view of the guidelines discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities.

Building on Crazypaco's discussion, the better argument is that it should be excluded by WP:UNDUE and WP:SCOPE. As a private institution Liberty may accept donations from anyone it so chooses, which is the same as other private universities. Therefore its inclusion is not encyclopedic or interesting. I have not found any reports of allegations of unethical behavior or changes to school policies, doctrines or teachings linked to the donation. Also, the amount is not even notable as Liberty is estimated to be valued at $1 billion dollars; this makes the (effectively) $3 million donation only a contribution of 0.3% to total worth. The inclusion of this section in the article makes a non-issue into an issue.

I apologize if I was reading into the previous comment by ElKevbo, but I wanted to make it clear that I am not affiliated with Liberty either as an alma mater or as an employee. I was acting in good faith when I removed the 1994 debt buy-out section, as I believed it was not a good inclusion in the article. I believe all of my edits to this page have improved the content and readability of the page. Wolfy54 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Material that is not specifically covered by a Wikiproject content guide can still be included in an article, especially if it is sourced correctly per WP:V and doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. It seems that the disputed content here ought to be included.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should this material be included? How is it important? What information does it convey to readers that is essential to their understanding of this university? ElKevbo (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a significant moment in the school's history, explaining how the university survived debt issues. Why keep it out?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If it wasn't an issue it wouldn't be mentioned in a number of books.[1]. The fact that Liberty can accept donations from anyone they choose is in no way an argument to keep this out of the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The mere fact that something happened and is noted in reliable sources is insufficient reason for us to include that information in an encyclopedia article. The burden is on those who want to include the information to justify that the material is particularly interesting or relevant to the subject of the article. So far, you haven't met that burden. I suspect you probably can do so - there probably is something interesting and important about a controversial religious figure making a huge donation to a conservative religious institution of a differing faith - but no one has provided sources explaining why this event is important for readers who want to understand this university.

And you have to do much better than a mere link to a Google search! No one is questioning whether this event happened but whether it's important to discuss this event in this particular article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The Google books search was in response to being told it wasn't an issue. I don't know that anyone is questioning whether or not that happened. No time to respond to your other question but I will say that the book sources see it as significant enough for them to write about - they aren't just listing who paid off what. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the books are about this university which strikes to the heart of the issue: Why is this event important for readers interested in this university? So far, the only answer has been related to this donation saving the university when it was in financial straits. That may be good enough to warrant a brief, one-sentence mention but I suspect there are other issues at play that are being hinted at but not fully discussed. If these donations are important because supporters of the university objected to the religious views of their source then that should be clearly stated, not hinted at or danced around. But if nothing lasting came of this event then it may deserve only a cursory mention at best. ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you really saying that the only material in this article should be from books whose topic is this university? It's a controversy that got attention in a number of sources. That should be enough. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's so controversial why are you having such a difficult time saying that and explaining how the controversy is important to readers of this article? ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::::Hold on. We're being told this was a non-issue, routine, etc. The article says the loan was obtained through a broker, a normal business transaction. But the Los Angeles Times says "Much of Moon's influence-buying is done in secret and often occurs when conservatives are vulnerable to being bought. A recent example is Christian right leader Jerry Falwell, who feared his fundamentalist Liberty University in Virginia was slipping into bankruptcy. Desperate for an infusion of cash, Falwell and two associates made an unannounced trip to South Korea in January 1994, where they solicited help from Unification Church representatives, according to documents on file in a court case in Bedford County, Va. Months later, Moon's organization funneled $3.5 million to Liberty University through a clandestine channel. The money was delivered through one of Moon's front groups, the Women's Federation for World Peace. It then passed through the Christian Heritage Foundation, a Virginia nonprofit corporation that was buying up--and forgiving--Liberty's debt".[2] So does 'financially stabilize' mean rescue from bankruptcy? And was the broker the Christian Heritage Magazine? I found [3] which I'm not suggesting as a source but is interesting as it provides more details (which would need to be better sourced). And ElKevbo, if it wasn't controversial, why are there articles like this in reliable sources discussing it? It is a significant event in the history of the university if the LA Times is correct. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe he said it wasn't controversial, I believe he said you haven't proven it controversial based on the original sources. If the La Times is correct and it is backed by other reliable sources with the exact same facts, then it probably should be included...but the original source does not really show controversy. Chris1834 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And we should ensure that if this is controversial or interesting then it's in the context of this university. In other words, we shouldn't include this incident if the university's involvement was peripheral or trivial. ElKevbo (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. What is the controversy in this story as pertains to the university? I have found no sources reporting or suggesting any policy changes, special favors or doctrinal modifications associated with Moon or the Unification Church. The core story appears to be that a cult leader donated money to Liberty, and Liberty spent the money as it saw fit. If Moon was "influence buying", then where is the influence manifested? Otherwise, how is this interesting or important? There are no allegations of legal or ethical wrongdoing at all by the university. So why include it? Many universities come close to bankruptcy and are saved by donations, so why is this one special? This seems to fall under WP:UNDUE and WP:SCOPE. Wolfy54 (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. An Evangelical university accepts money from a group most Evangelicals see as a cult. That seems controversial and interesting on the face of it. The thing about controveries as that not everyone suggests its controversial. Whether or not any influence is manifested is irrelevant. Among other things, we don't know what would have happeneded if this hadn't received publicity. And I do not see why we need the LA Times to be backed by other sources with exactly the same facts, unless someone is suggesting the LA Times isn't a reliable source. One of my problems here is that I hadn't read carefully enough the way the article described this. Our article doesn't make it clear that the university was in a financial crisis. Last night I was rushing as I was off to bed. This morning I've noted that [[4]] is by [[Robert Parry (journalist}]] and I would argue a reliable source, and another similar article of his was published in the Las Angeles Times.[5] See also this Salon article.[6] Falwell was a Moon supporter before this event and went to South Korea soliciting this financial support according to Parry. For me the issue is the way this is reported in this article. The university's involvement doesn't seem to have been peripheral or trivial. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia is that possible controversies that may only be interesting to a small minority of readers violates WP:UNDUE. You aren't telling the whole story either. An Evangelical university accepts money from a cult leader...and the university spends it as it sees fit, with no further allegations of untoward influence from the cult leader. So...it's a donation. No one is denying the fact that the donation took place. All of the references you give do not prove or even suggest any involvement between Liberty and Moon outside of the donation. The involvement shifts to Jerry Falwell and Moon, and Falwell is not Liberty. Perhaps this should be moved to Falwell's page? From the sources listed, Liberty's involvement as an institution does appear to be peripheral and trivial. Please note that the Old Time Gospel Hour and the Moral Majority movement were Falwell enterprises and not those of Liberty University. All of the sources listed focus on Falwell and Moon (and their common conservative ideology), not on Moon's influence or involvement with Liberty University. That is why this also violates WP:SCOPE. As a compromise, I suggest we move this section to Falwell's page.Wolfy54 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources do not appear to implicate Liberty in anything controversial outside of accepting a donation. If there is anything noteworthy about this, it is Falwell's involvement with Moon, unless information ever comes out that the University did something in exchange for the donation against its values. Falwell is not Liberty. This should be removed from Liberty's page and moved to Falwell's or deleted.24.149.121.8 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC). signed Coerver (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The article on the The Washington Times (owned by the Moonies) includes the connection to Rev. Moon in the lead, why scrub it from here?--GrapedApe (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference between The Washington Times is that Moon doesn't own Liberty University, nor did he ever appear to have influence over university policy, doctrine or activities outside of his donation. There are no allegations of this either from credible sources. His entire involvement was a single donation.Wolfy54 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

We have two editors here whose edits are more or less confined to Liberty and related articles. The LA Times articles and others show that there is quite a bit more here than some are willing to accept. The next step I guess is NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that WP:DUE is the question on the table but you're welcome to seek further input assuming you do so in a manner that doesn't favor your side of the conflict (which is not an accusation or concern specific to you but an issue that often further stymies or muddies differences of opinion that are posted to notice boards).

It would be very helpful if you could draft some proposed text for the article with the new sources. ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller may discount my opinion all you want, but you have yet to make a convincing case. Why is this interesting to the readers of the article? How is Liberty implicated beyond accepting the donation? Did something else happen? Was policy changed, or doctrine, or teaching, or did Liberty become aligned with the Unification Church? Otherwise, it is just a donation, and all money spends the same. Please define what is controversial or interesting as pertains to Liberty University.

Also, the Consortiumnews.com site is self-published. The LA Times article is by the same person, and is a primary source since it is an opinion piece by the author and not a Times investigation. The whole non-story rests on a primary source WP:PRIMARY. If I am mistaken about this, please let me know how.Wolfy54 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, I do not edit Wikipedia as frequently as most of the rest of you. On the rare occasion that I do, I make every effort to follow Wikipedia guidelines. While guidance from senior wikipedia community members like Dougweller and Elkevbo is welcomed and necessary, I thought the assumption of good faith was a founding principle. If Wolfy or anyone else was trying to whitewash a truly encyclopedic piece of information, they should be called out and probably banned. Dougweller seems to be using conjecture to assume that Moon bought influence with Liberty and a truly shady (and thus worthy of inclusion) incident took place. Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism or conjecture. A business transaction with only a possibility of some non-specific undue influence given as a result is certainly not encyclopedic in nature.Coerver (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a previous suggestion. This controversy appears to be less about Liberty University and more about Jerry Falwell's era. This section would be best moved to Falwell's page or deleted altogether.(KateM55 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@KateM55 - you mention good faith - I'd like you to extend that to me. I'm pretty sure you are putting words into my mouth and I've made no such suggestions about buying influence or shady deals. I have no idea what you mean by :Jerry Falwell's era' - it's clearly about the University. Our definition of investigative journalism includes going undercover, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know what you are referring to as 'conjecture'.

@Wolfy54 - if you don't think it is controversial, that's your right. Just as it's up to you to show why something that received quite a bit of publicity wouldn't be of interest to readers of this article. It's my experience that major news sources such as th LA Times try to make sure everything they publish is of interest to an audience. As for Robert Parry's article in the LA Times, I believe that so long is it properly attributed it can be used since it is published in a reliable source. I'd also challenge the statement "Falwell is not Liberty" as I don't think you can separate them so easily.

@ElKevbo Of course I'll try to present the issues as fairly as I can, but when you post to NPOVN, RSN, etc you aren't expected to be neutral and I will argue my case and expect others to argue theirs. It may be that uninvolved parties think I'm wrong and if that's the case I'll accept the decision. I think that I do need to go to NPOVN in part because of the presence of single purpose accounts. Wolfy54 has at least been editing this article regularly since 2011 - he's the 3rd largest contributor. Coerver on the other hand hasn't edited this article for almost 2 years. KateM55 made one edit in March and has made 2 article edits in all, plus the edit above. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I should have looked before to see when this was added. It was added over 6 years ago[7] and Wolfy54, Coerver and KateM55 have not ojected to it in the past. I don't know what has happened to cause this to change. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, taken to WP:NPOVN. Wolfy, I'd forgotten our discussion over the RICO lawsuit. We ended up agreeing that it wasn't noteworthy at the time but if it became noteworthy should be in the article. I really don't see how this issue is different. I've also raised the old bond issue which was deleted. And I'll note that although you objected to the debot buy-out being in the article as it isn't in the guidelines, you didn't remove the Finances section and that isn't in the guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller you guessed correctly. I am new to wikipedia. I find these editing conversations really interesting, and though I don't have much editing experience, I am learning a lot. All the same, I think Wolfy has a valid point in this conversation, this section does not hold as much interest as other aspects on the university's page. And besides, Moon's donation is such a small sum compared to the University's net worth today. (KateM55 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kate. Yes, the University's worth at that time was a fraction of what it is today. But at the time, the University was in financial trouble and this made a difference. Thus it's an important part of the the history of the University, as is the rejection of the bond issue which should also be in the article. It wasn't an insignificant event (and I find the Finance section boring, but am not insisting that it should be removed although I'd trim it drastically and add some of the history of the University's finance including these two events). I have to ask, Kate, how did you find out about this discussion? Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

KateM55 is partially correct - it was a small sum. Liberty owed $120 million at the time of the donation [8]. I realize that every little bit helps, but $3.5 million is not a significant contribution compared to $120 million. Additionally, 3 years later Arthur Williams donated $70 million, which makes the $3.5 million seem (rightly) inconsequential [9]. My position is still that this violates WP:UNDUE and WP:SCOPE. It is an insignificant donation in the history of the university's finances. It did not stabilize Liberty's finances nor keep it from bankruptcy.Wolfy54 (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-profit University

Liberty is a private non-profit university but the non-profit status should not change this to a non-profit organization page. It is a university first and foremost. I think using a non-profit infobox would just confuse users as to what the organization actually is. Also the non-profit infobox was inaccurate in certain areas when it was switched in. Are we pushing for all non-profit universities to be switched to the less detailed non-profit infobox? Chris1834 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess we could ask at the wikiproject, but it seems wrong to do use the non-profit infobox here. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities; do feel free to join in! While I wouldn't want to preempt final consensus initial comments support the use of the University infobox. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include discussion of either or both the bond denied bond issue and the Unification Church's financial support?

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 this article contain a discussion of either/or:

1. The 1989 bond issue invalidated by the Supreme Court of Virginia as a violation of the Establishment of Religion clauses in the US and Virginia constitutions.

2. The financial assistance given in 1994 by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey (please use the threaded discussion section to comment on any !votes)

• Support 1 and 2 I'll give more detail in threaded discussion, but both of these issues were significant at the time and discussed in several reliable sources. They are an important part of the history of the financing of the university, and the issue of bonds and religious education is a constitutional issue discussed not just in the popular media but in law journals and academic texts (which discuss this specific case). Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support both events as noteworthy and moreso to the extent that there is opposition to including them, which I assume by the existence of this RFC there must be. EllenCT (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support both These are notable topics and the sources are reliable. [BTW, I think "either/or" is usually interpreted as "exclusive or" so, technically, "both" is not an option here.] (randomly recruited by LegoBot) Jojalozzo 18:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely Support Both Remember, Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic, its editor volunteers hope to provide relevant information which is accurate and as inclusive as reasonable, at minimum touching upon the most salient aspects of the extant article. Obviously these two issues should be included since they are major aspects of the organization being described. Damotclese (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC) [Edit: I was randomly selected for RFC on this question] Damotclese (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of both Both events appear to have been covered by WP:RS and are legitimate candidates for inclusion in article. --GrapedApe (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Exclude both Neither issue is important to the school or the article. The Unification Church issue violates WP:UNDUE as $3.5 million is not a significant sum in the history of the school which is now worth over $1 billion. It wasn't a large sum at the time of donation as it also received a donation of over $70 million just 3 years later. The bond rejection is interesting as a court case and judicial precedence, but not to the history of the school.Wolfy54 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support BRIEF BRIEF low key coverage of both This doesn't mean open the Pandora's box of making a "hit piece" out of this by over-coverage of these minor-in-proportion items. If such is attempted, it will be time for a 2nd RC. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support short coverage of both Weight should not be too much, and should be similar to what one may see in a well rounded longish newspaper or magazine article on the university that is written factually and neutrally. LK (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support both. Seems relevant and topical. Excessive coverage could be problematic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support brief mention of #1 in an expanded history section. #2 questionable. There’s a significant risk of giving these issues undue weight. Per my comment in threaded discussion, these would be appropriate in section on the history of the university that covered financial difficulties in early 1990s and what university did to respond. Issue #2 should be included as "controvery" only if there really was a controversy -- unclear to me if that is the case --Federalist51 (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Support from the Unification Church

The story is reported in a number of reliable sources. For instance, an LA Times article by [[Robert Parry {journalist}]], the Washington Post by their own staff writers who use Parry but also discovered a later loan[10], Christianity Today[11] are just three. Parry says (and this is not in the article) that "Desperate for an infusion of cash, Falwell and two associates made an unannounced trip to South Korea in January 1994, where they solicited help from Unification Church representatives, according to documents on file in a court case in Bedford County, Va. Months later, Moon's organization funneled $3.5 million to Liberty University through a clandestine channel. The money was delivered through one of Moon's front groups, the Women's Federation for World Peace. It then passed through the Christian Heritage Foundation, a Virginia nonprofit corporation that was buying up--and forgiving--Liberty's debt." There are of course more sources in both the media and in books, etc. I am told that this was a trivial sum at the time, but I don't see the relevance of that. It was important enough for the university's founder to travel with two associates to South Korea.

I reject the argument being made that this is really about Falwell and should only be in his article, not this article. It is about actions by the founder of the university, soliciting help from an organisation with major theological differences with Christianity. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that I believe that the paragraph needs to be rewritten, in particular to point out that this donation was evidently solicited. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For the second (third?) time, please propose text for the article. In this discussion, I can't distinguish between your own personal opinion and what you claim is in reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Then ask me specific questions - I have no idea what you are unclear about. I haven't wanted to start working on a proposed text until there is a decision as to whether this should be mentioned or not. That's the basic issue. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I genuinely believe that the best way forward is for you or others who want this material in the article to propose some text. As far as I can tell, you appear convinced that this material should be in the article because you personally believe that it's important or interesting. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, however, and asking that you draft some text using reliable sources because I may be misunderstanding the sources and the issues. The issue is also clouded by the SPAs who are participating in this discussion and I think that focusing on proposed material with reliable sources is the best way forward. ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The citations that I have checked on both of the issues that were part of the RFC appear to be relevant and legitimate, so I'm not sure exactly what the major contentions were. I see that there was some question about "personal opinion" being used as a "reliable source" however I checked the citations that are offered, I don't see anything that might be considered unreliable or tangent to the issues. Looks good to me! Unless I'm missing something. I had better dump the Talk: to paper and see if I missed something. Damotclese (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• This first Washington Post article says the donation "rescu[ed] the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Lynchburg, Va., religious school from the brink of bankruptcy". That seems significant. groupuscule (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sources appear to substantiate the validness of including a discussion of this material.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like there is consensus on keeping the information. Incidentally, I was somewhat surprised to see that the "University" was still in operation since I recall endless financial difficulties going back decades due to criminal indictments and civil lawsuits coupled to an inability to acquire legitimate, actual accreditation. Many of the referenced accreditations are fake fronts, pay-for-accreditation "listing" which the Scientology corporation also employes. Damotclese (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• The "University" is the largest in Virginia with a $1 billion endowment, and accredited by the legitimate Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The financial difficulties spanned approximately 10 years and ended in 1997. No case was made for why this is of interest to the readers. No case was made as to why this is anything more than a donation (no influence by the Unification Church on Liberty was ever alleged). If it is interesting as a donation, why? It wasn't large at the time ($70 million was donated 3 years later), and other donations of similar size are not listed on other university pages (WP:UNDUE). It isn't interesting to the history of the organization since it is now worth $1 billion. So why should this be included? Because it exists?Wolfy54 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this could belong in article, but think the question of context and weight are important. What is historically noteworthy is the financial difficulties that the university experienced in the early 1990s. If this were covered in the history section, it would be appropriate to discuss loans and bond issue there. See, e.g. [this 1992 NYT story for context|http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/19/news/campus-journal-falwell-s-college-alters-mission-to-keep-it-alive.html]] As a stand alone in "controversy" section, topic does seem to be given undue weight. Though I don't follow this issue, I doubt that this is a controversy today, and question whether there are reliable sources that describe this as a "controversy" even at the time. (And though I know many articles have them, the whole concept of a "controversies" section strikes me as dubious and subject to abuse as a dumping ground for topics that don't have that much importance to the overall article, but that are nevertheless "interesting" to read about.) --Federalist51 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1989 bond issue

This was removed just over a year ago[12]. The claim in the edit summary that "it stated falsely that Liberty was named in the court case" is simply not true. This source[13] states that the court called the university "pervasively religious" and ineligible for the bonds. It was important financially to the University and in part I believe led to the financial problems leading to the need for financial support from the Unification Chruch, and was an important case in the history of constitutional law relating to church and state, although this wasn't made clear in the section deleted from this article. The case of "Habel v. Industrial Development Authority of the City of Lynchburg" (Habel being one of three taxpayers who brought the case) lead to the denial of a bond issue to Regent University, which was later overturned in 2000 but with a stipulation that Regent's divinity school could not use buildings financed by the bonds.[14] It would also have to be rewritten to include more sources and mention the Regent University caseDougweller (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comments: I basically agree with what Dougweller seems to be trying to do. The funding by the Liberation church is obviously extremely important, but the religious implications of it should not be drawn explicitly unless there are good independent references. The bond issue would be relevant if the University were included explicitly in the Habel court case, but I see no reference to it. In particular, I do not see that the article by David Reed cited just above [15] says anything about the court case, just that Falwell's bonds are unregulated--possibly the wrong article is being cited. (that the case with respect to Regents was overturned is relevant to what might happen here only if this is discussed in good sources. ) Possibly we need an article on the Habel vs. Lynchburg case. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, that was the wrong link. There are a lot of press reports, most behind paywalls, but here are some. [16] gives a good idea of the background and the problems facing Liberty at the time. [17], [18] and [19] are just a few more that are free. {https://chronicle.com/article/Virginia-Supreme-Court-Rules/89597/}, [20] and [21] are more - a lot of the Google books mentions are snippets. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Appears to be valid material for inclusion.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Again, why is this of interest to the readers of the article? It was denied federal bonds because it was pervasively religious. This is interesting as judicial precedent but not to the school itself, as it was never in question that the school was pervasively religious.Wolfy54 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Question for Ellen

Ellen, Can you please clarify your support statement above: Are you saying that the mere existence of an RfC in a Wikipedia Talk page is sufficient evidence that past events discussed in that RfC are inherently notable? ElKevbo (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And as I said to you, the question of WP:Notability doesn't seem relevant here:"Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Notability in the narrow Wikipedia sense but in the broader "is it important enough to include in an encyclopedia article?" sense or WP:UNDUE if you insist. (It's terribly unfortunate that such a useful word has been co-opted for a narrow, technical, and idiosyncratic meaning!)

In other words, I object to the idea that a Wikipedia editor can start an RfC about a topic and then others can use that RfC as evidence of controversy of sufficient importance to be included in an encyclopedia article. It's a circular argument to rely on Wikipedia processes to determine Wikipedia content in that manner. ElKevbo (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for WP:NOTEWORTHY not WP:GNG. I have seen too much whitewashing on Wikipedia to infer that a controversy regarding whether controversies should be noted are free from conflict of interest editing. Have there been any times when they were not? EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please answer the question. ElKevbo (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You asked me a question about notability for inclusion of statements in an article. Do you understand the difference on Wikipedia between notability and noteworthiness? If you mean noteworthiness instead of notability, then yes, in general, the existence of an RFC about whether to include controversial statements has in my experience always been evidence that the statements are being opposed by those with a conflict of interest regarding their suppression. Again, if you are able to point to an instance when this has not been the case then I would be happy to look further into the merits. EllenCT (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the difference between notability and noteworthiness; I've been here for a while and have a few edits under my belt so don't patronize me.

Your belief that a Wikipedia RfC is de facto evidence of real world importance is such an egregious error in logic that I'm at a loss for words. We have large sections of Wikipedia devoted to in-house conflicts that have little or no importance outside of this project e.g., Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. ElKevbo (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me like you have seen a lot less whitewashing than I have here. EllenCT (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Endowment

An unregistered editor has edit warred with several other editors to insist that U.S. News & World Report be used as the exclusive reference for this university's endowment despite the fact that more recent reliable sources exist; note that the USN&WR data places the endowment at 58 million whereas more recent sources place it at just over 1 billion. I agree that endowments are tricky and oft misunderstood but the more recent sources are reliable and quite clear. More importantly, the more recent sources explicitly acknowledge and discuss the endowment's meteoric growth which makes this important information to include in this article.

Can someone make a convincing argument for keeping the older USN&WR figure over the more recent one supported by reliable sources such as The Washington Post? ElKevbo (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The $1 billion figure is definitely off the mark. The "reliable" sources that are cited are just copies of the same source, which is actually just an article written by religionnews.com. I think the article's author confused "assets" with "endowment", as the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported in an original article that the university had only $860 million in assets in 2012. Liberty University's assets have no doubt reached $1 billion by now, but a $1 billion endowment is an extremely dubious claim. I think the figure should be changed back, or at least removed; there do not seem to be any reliable recent sources that give an exact figure. RioDevez (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And for heaven's sake, using the same article twice (but from different newspapers) doesn't make it referenced twice. Why would anyone do that? Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bond issue

I see this was removed by an IP, whose other 2 edits space out over some months have only been to remove critical material. It's been replaced but tagged as unreferenced. Please not that it should not be removed for that reason, not only did the RfC close as keeping this, there are two references above that I added to the discussion. It would be nice if someone added them, and particularly nice if that was someone who didn't want it there, that way at least they'd have some input. I noticed that none of the people who objected were willing to replace it after the RfC, which disappointed me. I didn't rush in because I hoped one of the more regular editors here would do that. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller - I haven't had time to work on it. I was hoping to add a section on the origins of the college (under history) and include this and the Moon information in it per the RfC. Thank you for adding it per the RfC.Wolfy54 (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Violence

The violence hasn't stopped, and we can't keep censoring it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no censorship at all. WP has two articles on the subject. See: List of school-related attacks & List of school shootings in the United States. The fact that various buildings, schools, neighborhoods, towns, cities, parks, etc. suffer such violence does not justify including stories about individual incidents in particular articles. Overall, in history, violence is at the lowest level ever seen. And schools, in particular, are actually very safe locations. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be original research of the most dubious sort to pretend to know whether these schools are safe. Fortunately, it would also be unimportant to the question of whether we should censor such incidents. Do you have any policy at all behind your support for censorship? MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Violence may be at the lowest level in history, Srich. Does that mean that we pretend that nobody was killed in all the wars of the past 50 years? What a foolish and offensive denial of the tragic incidents at Liberty University. SPECIFICO talk 04:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

School violence is an article that addresses the subject, but interestingly it does not say much about the rates of violence either historically or in comparison to other parts of society. Still, I am not suggesting that we look at any particular school or incident and thereby strive to say things like "its about the university including its policies about shooing students" or "tells us not to attack an officer" or "ongoing violence". Quite the opposite. Policy? WP:NOTNEWS covers this, and NOTNEWS is not the equivalent of censorship. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, a misrepresentation wrapped in a wiki-link. That policy has nothing to do with your equivocation concerning these events at Liberty University. We're not talking about abstractions like school violence, aggregate or average rates of crime, or any other of these straw man denials. The WP article must describe specific events as stated in the cited RS references. SPECIFICO talk 05:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation, absolutely none. MilesMoney suggests that censorship is at play, but the links show that WP addresses the issue of school violence, even if it does a poor job in doing so. Nor is there dispute about the reliability of the source. But describing a source as RS does not excuse improper usage of the WP:NOTNEWS material. Address that concern before putting the story back in the article and see if you can garner support for inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your entire statement is a misrepresentation of policy. The dead give-away is that you gave us TLA's but can't quote specific sentences of policy that are relevant. I'm sorry, but this sort of evasion is entirely counterproductive. You need to step up your game by being rigorously honest. MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In 2012 there was mention of a RICO lawsuit involving Liberty. I thought it should be mentioned, but agreed that I was wrong after reading "I agree with Wolfy54. If there is significant coverage of the lawsuit by reliable, notable sources would probably warrant some sort of mention in this article. But the sources submitted so far don't reach that bar and without such coverage almost certainly we shouldn't be including civil lawsuits in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 6:17 am, 17 August 2012." So, the issue seems to be, according to these two editors who are removing the text, that if it has received significant coverage by reliable, notable sources it warrants mention. I would argue that it clearly passes the bar that ElKevbo and Wolfy54 have set[22]. It's hard to AGF editors who keep deleting critical material, but perhaps they can explain. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion in reliable sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. In other words, we don't include every single item reported in reliable sources but we employ editorial discretion in deciding what to include (which is one aspect of due weight). In this instance, noting a single recent act of violence on campus doesn't seem to tell readers anything about the campus except that a single recent act of violence occurred. It's a tragic and deplorable event but what essential information about this university are readers supposed to learn from it? This is an encyclopedia article summarizing the essential characteristics of this university, not an all-inclusive list of events and items associated with this university.

Unless we receive more information, it seems to be just a one-off incident that doesn't tell us anything except that a one-off incident occurred. Should there be further information that makes this into a larger event - police or administration coverup, long history of violence, etc. - my position would likely change. ElKevbo (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I opened this section by pointing out that it isn't a "one-off incident", linking to a RS. Now you act as if you'd never even seen the OP. How am I supposed to react to this? MilesMoney (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I missed that. It still seems to be a stretch especially linking the off-campus violence of a brother of a current students to this incident (and the seemingly-ridiculous fact that "a search warrant also revealed that Hathaway was also in possession of a pair of scissors"). This builds a slightly stronger case for inclusion but I'm still not convinced. ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still see a chance in stance between what you and another editor said last year and what is being said now. But ok, you've agreed that further developments might change your position, that's helpful. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, in this edit [23] you restored the story about the shooting. (Line 35) ElKevbo, Wolfy54, and I all agree that the isolated shooting incident is not appropriate for the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I know all that. I explained why. If you all disagree with me I'm sure one of you will reverse me. I'm unlikely to reinstate it if no one else agrees with me or there are no new relevant reports of further developments. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood your explanation. Seems part of the discussion involves RICO. And you referred to a discussion that took place last year while the shooting incident occurred this month. So I am confused. Do you think this shooting incident is appropriate for the article? If not, then yours will be a fourth voice for keeping it out. The incident generated a lot of news, as such incidents do, mainly because campus violence is rare, especially when compared to other locations. – S. Rich (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, there's clearly disagreement here. Two editors responded to your removal of this text (for what was it, the third time?) on the talk page. We asked for a clear policy-based explanation of your concern. You declined to provide one. It sounds to me as if you believe that -- because you believe your view is correct -- you are entitled to edit-war this short paragraph. That's not nice. Please AGF and engage in talk so that we can all find common ground. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Last year's discussion was about a lawsuit - it was agreed that it should not be in the article because there was insufficient coverage. That doesn't apply to this incident and those who argued against it last time seem to have raised the bar with an argument they didn't use before. I am not at all convinced that that is a sufficient reason to keep it out, but I'm not going to keep adding it if most editors think it should be removed, unless the coverage continues, etc. So I am not one of those who think it should be removed. And if campus violence is rare, that's another reason it should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the shooting information should be removed again. It appears to be a singular incident, one that will not readily recur or become newsworthy in the future. Therefore, I believe that it should at the very least not be in this article, as WP:NOTNEWS does not allow for the inclusion of information regarding events without enduring notability. I would not think of this as censorship, as Wikipedia does not accept all content. We as editors have to cut down the content to only include encyclopedic information. Another note is that this story did gain fair media coverage, which I do not find significant, as shootings and violence gain excessive and disproportionate attention in news.--ɱ (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Excessive by whose standard? We are here to report the facts in proportion to the importance reflected in mainstream sources. It's not up to WP editors to call such coverage excessive. SPECIFICO talk 00:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then let me rephrase it: I do not believe that we can call this issue significant solely based on national and/or multi-corporation media coverage. In addition, I would say that it is a fairly-accepted idea that shootings have more coverage than other events and issues. The Newtown and Aurora shootings, as well as the incidents related to Christopher Dorner were on the national broadcasting stations for weeks, with an overwhelming coverage. This does not make either of these three issues remarkably significant. In fact, here's an article about a shooting that received little coverage, but can be deemed just as significant in an encyclopedia: link.

Now WP:EVENTCRIT tells us that "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." I believe that in this circumstance, the scope of reporting should be less influential in whether we include the information. The news reports on the issue at Liberty College appear to be remarkably excessive for just another violent incident out of many, I believe that most of us can agree on that. Therefore, and because of the appearance of no lasting significance, as described by me above, I stand against the content's inclusion. This is without a doubt recentism that will fade from any real significance within a year.--ɱ (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, there are many shootings in the world every day. However for a student to be shot to death by his college's security guard is unusual and noteworthy. To respond in terms of the example you provide above: The Sany Hook shootings were just among the hundreds of thousands of human deaths on the planet that day. They would not be noteworthy in an article about life on earth. However they are extremely noteworthy for an article about Sandy Hook Elementary School. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. One person shot another person, that wouldn't be noteworthy even if it happened at Sandy Hook; it doesn't matter who the victim is, why the shooter did it, or any other minor details. The Newtown shooting is primarily noteworthy because of the remarkable amount of fatalities. As well, most would agree that Newtown and Aurora had lasting effects that this Liberty U shooting will not have. In this case, it's situational: there were no unauthorized guns, no premeditated murder, no regulations that need changing. In Aurora and Newtown, besides the massive casualties, there was premeditated murder as well as stolen or illegal weapons. The Liberty U shooting appears to be covered excessively by media sources, appears to have no lasting effects, and has no place in this article.--ɱ (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The "excessive" coverage by reliable sources contradicts your personal opinion about the shooting being unimportant. Let's not second-guess our sources on such matters. MilesMoney (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are readers supposed to learn about this university from this item? What larger narrative does it play into? Remember that we're writing an encyclopedia article and that article should have a cohesive narrative and not a disconnected list of seemingly-unrelated facts. ElKevbo (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's not up to WP editors to weave a narrative out of what RS say about the University. There's no doubt the violence is noteworthy. That has been established from the RS coverage of it. On the other hand, much of this article's content is currently sourced to primary statements and promotional materials which originate at the University itself and its affiliates. That kind of sourcing is very problematic on WP, because the noteworthiness of the underlying facts and events has not been established. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Miles Money: The "excessive" coverage in no way contradicts my personal opinion about the shooting being unimportant. I was very clear in stating that media sources have given this issue undue weight, that much is obvious.

SPECIFICO, there's great doubt the violence is noteworthy. It appears that the doubt has been expressed at least by S. Rich, ElKevbo, and me. As for the RS coverage, it establishes nothing of the noteworthiness of this item; this issue having been blown significantly out of proportion by mass media.--ɱ (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ɱ. WP policy categorically prevents us from basing edits on our own judgments, such as your view that this has been blown out of proportion by the RS media. That would be WP:OR and regardless of our opinions we must represent what RS say in proportion to the references. Have you found RS which state that the violence is unimportant or not noteworthy? If so please share with us, as it would help move the discussion forward. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Cute. When determining whether or not information is encyclopedic or mere news, WP:EVENTCRIT tells us that "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." Therefore, editors are recommended to make subjective judgements using good faith and fair reasoning. I believe that in this circumstance, the scope of reporting should be less influential in whether we include the information. Therefore, we should primarily assess the event's lasting, historical significance, which appears to be insignificant.--ɱ (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico is correct about policy. The coverage from reliable sources is a clear signal that cannot be overcome with subjective doubts. MilesMoney (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If I found thirty RSs saying a celebrity dislikes some electoral candidate, sure it has enough RSs to be included, but it is still far from encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not accept all RS'd content. That is firmly established in WP:EVENT. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it should not contain this insignificant piece of news..--ɱ (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The policy you cite is not applicable to this discussion. That policy relates to whether an event is notable enough to have its own WP article. At this point I don't have any opinion as to whether we should start an article about violence at Liberty U. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Editors exercise judgment all the time with regard to the encyclopedic nature of the information. Compare, panty raids were once newsworthy, but we would not include such events in individual articles. Nor should we add news reports of more serious events such as dorm thefts, parking lot car break-ins, fights and assaults, etc. In this case we consider the applicable guidance and exercise judgment to exclude this tragic event because of its narrow scope. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you really comparing shootings to panty raids?! MilesMoney (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(←) MilesMoney, it may be silly, but he's still entirely right. SPECIFICO, sure WP:EVENT refers more specifically to whether an event can warrant its own article, but editors refer to it consistently as a guideline for what content can or should be considered encyclopedic. It stands separate from WP:OR, and maintains that even though content needs sources, it also needs to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.--ɱ (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend to be silly, and the rest of my comment says so. This is a matter of sound editing, and we should not let our sympathies for the student override our judgment in these matters. As I remarked at the start of this discussion, there are several articles where the topics of violence and campus violence in particular can be developed. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not silly, it's insulting. Comparing someone's death to something as inconsequential as a panty raid trivializes it.

We agree that WP:EVENT does not apply so let's not try to apply it. Instead, we should recognize that we don't have crystal balls and that Wikipedia is not complete. Based on what our sources say today, we should mention the violence. If this turns out to be a minor blip, our successors can remove it at some point in the future. MilesMoney (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We do not agree that EVENT "does not apply". Quite the opposite. (And I first learned about death in kindergarten.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, when looking at WP:N for news-related content (under "Common Circumstances"), it directs the user to WP:EVENT as the main source of information and policy on content that may be news-like and unencyclopedic. As well, we can all use that WP:N section, under Common Circumstances, titled "Events". It contradicts any justification for including the Liberty U shooting information in this article. And as S. Rich has stated before, WP:NOTNEWS also covers this. --ɱ (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Another useful essay is WP:DUST. If this turns out to be worthy of inclusion, later, then we add it. But putting it in now, without exercising sound editorial judgment, creates an other stuff exists situation. E.g., "Look, Liberty U has a section about this particular death, the article I want to write about should have similar material!" – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, even if you are correct in claiming that "other editors" -- those weasels -- incorrectly cite that policy in order to selectively ignore RS, that hardly provides any justification for you to do so. Right? SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not an RS issue. There is an Internet full of RS, and so we have to select what RS goes into the article. The "selective ignoring" of RS occurs when this incident is not added to the list articles (mentioned above) as has been done so far. – S. Rich (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Explain why we should omit mention of this incident. MilesMoney (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I did, several times; if that's not enough for you, I don't know what is. All of the points against using the shooting content still are valid and remain relatively uncontradicted within this discussion. An abundance of RSs does not make a news topic worth mentioning; the policies and guidelines tell you only to include information with lasting effects, and this has none yet, so we should let the DUST settle. RSs alone are not justification for content inclusion, as long as the information is not encyclopedic.

Better yet, explain why we should mention this incident.--ɱ (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We have reliable sources showing that this series of incidents is notable. You've offered absolutely no reason to omit mention, other than your crystal ball certainty that such violence is unimportant. I refute your crystal ball with a shrug. MilesMoney (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(←) That's it? That's the only reason you think the content should be included; because mass media stresses its importance? Mass media has also asserted that IQ affects browser usage. Mass media should not be a primary nor hardly a contributing factor whatsoever for inclusion in this article. Also, don't mention crystal balls. Nobody has yet argued that this event will have any lasting significance, and in the absence of such information, we should hold off on including the information. As well, I never caught a mention of how the content about this isolated event is encyclopedic.--ɱ (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney your original post claims that the violence can't be ignored, but the only violence that relates to Liberty University is the tragic student confrontation and death with the officer. What other violence is being censored? All I have seen reported on this so far is that an officer of the university was attacked by a student, and then shot the student in self-defense. There are plenty of RS on this story, but RS does not in itself make the event encyclopedic. WP:Notanewspaper covers this by stating that we need to consider the enduring notability of persons or events. The shooting happened a week ago; where are all of the stories today? It seems to be a tragic, sad incident, but it is not notable to RS even a week later. This may all change if some controversy is discovered during the ongoing investigation, but so far it appears to be self-defense by an officer. That is not encyclopedic, nor is it interesting from a historical perspective. Please provide some recent RS that suggests this is something other than self-defense by an officer. I have not found any at this time, which makes this story currently not encyclopedic or enduring.Wolfy54 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read the OP. It's not a single incident of violence. MilesMoney (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, it appears that you are talking about this article, which does not introduce any recent events related to the issue, and appears to have been posted four days after the shooting; only because it contains more information about the event. Can you find a source that makes this event encyclopedic, enduring, or more than a single incident of violence?--ɱ (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Attempted suicide with no details is not necessarily violence (e.g. pills, attempted CO poisoning, alcohol poisoning, writing a suicide letter and then getting drunk and passing out, etc). It is also not encyclopedic, historical or enduring. The tragic death of the sibling of a current student has no place in this article. Am I missing something more? Surely there is more. I apologize if I am overlooking another incident, but I have read the OP 3 times now. For the length of this Talk discussion, there must be more. Could you please be kind enough to be more specific? Again, I apologize, but I don't see what you are describing.Wolfy54 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, that's not how it works. If we attempt to remove it in the future, you can just say we haven't waited long enough. It needs to be the other way; it needs to be absent from the article so that if it ever becomes notable, it can be added back in. And right now, it's been over a week and no notability. Sorry, this gets removed.--ɱ (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's still in the news today, so you're mistaken about notability. MilesMoney (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken. Please provide a reliable source; I cannot find any news within 24 hours about this shooting.--ɱ (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you looked? Yesterday's article about the continuing investigation shows that the incident has ongoing consequences and the story isn't over. Likewise, the recent article about the Yale scare brings up the Liberty U shooting for comparison, showing that it's a touchstone, much like Columbine.

Look, this is really simple: If your crystal ball is right and this incident fades into obscurity, we can always remove the single sentence that mentions it. Until then, we have plenty of reason to keep it.

And, on that note, an editor who is not part of this discussion removed it with only a weak justification, so I'm restoring it. MilesMoney (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Branch, who is cited in the Worldmag.com article, looks like a free-lancer who made a small contribution to this particular news story. Nothing of enduring, encyclopedic value. Pointing to the Yale article/incident does not help – the connection is tangential at best. There are a variety of incidents that make the headlines simply because they are so unusual. They are still NOTNEWS type items. Branch's observation that there are unanswered questions actually makes the incident more un-encyclopedic. The unanswered questions probably pertain to the student himself, and not to the university. There is no requirement that editors participate in a discussion before they can make edits. In fact, the fact that they remove the material should be read as a "vote" against including it. – S. Rich (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

There's a bit sniping in the discussion above at various editors that seems to be unnecessary and unproductive. I see a genuine discussion between editors trying to figure out where the line is between new and important information that should be included and information that is just new but not (yet?) important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Can we please dampen down the accusations of censorship, favoritism, and other acts of bad faith? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit [24] suggests I believe "theres no need to discuss these changes". Quite the contrary – the last article talk page posting (above) was by me. I await and welcome further input from other editors so that consensus by the community in accordance with WP policies may be achieved. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you didn't contradict yourself on this particular issue. You did just say, "There is no requirement that editors participate in a discussion before they can make edits." And yet the most recent bit of tag-team edit-warring against inclusion reads, "must use talk page further". Ironically, the editor who said that failed to use the topic page further.

I think that, at this point, what we have here is a case of some people not liking a reliable source because they believe that no Wikipedia article should make something they like look bad in any way. MilesMoney (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no. I'm not being contradictory in the least. You had pointed out that the other editor had not participated in the discussion, and my comment went on to say that I felt that other editor was voicing support for removal of the material, even though s/he had not said something on the talk page. Two factors are at play: 1. we want to encourage participation, so remarks about having not participated can discourage contributions. 2. With the discussion on-going, consensus must be reached before we make the changes. I'm sorry that you misread/misunderstood my statement. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Just recently, you placed a tag to start a discussion, but once the edit-warring began, you joined in. MilesMoney (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Debate Awards...?

I noticed Liberty claimed to finish first in the National Debate Tournament several years (including 2011, 2009, among others). When I attempted to follow the sources, all the links were broken (as the pages no longer existed). This is only problematic as it contradicts with the wikipedia page for the tournament itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Debate_Tournament); that page details the winners of the Copeland awards (given to the top overall program), and Liberty is never mentioned. Would someone mind correcting this internal discrepency?

Thank you, 98.216.189.103 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Given that the material names specific people and makes claims that have been questioned, we must remove it unless there are supporting citations. MilesMoney (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The incidental mention of one name doesn't give you carte blanche to remove the entire paragraph using BLP as an excuse. In any case, it was trivial to fix the links so I've done so and restored the material.

Unregistered editor: It looks like the awards listed on the Wikipedia article for the debate tournament are for individual teams but the documents cited in this article have results aggregated for institutions. There may be a substantial or even controversial difference between the two sets of awards/rankings but that subtlety isn't apparent to me since the references cited in this article appear to be completely legitimate and from the same organization. ElKevbo (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that it's sourced, I have no problem with including this material. I do have a problem with arbitrarily removing the criticism part of this section. There's absolutely no justification for that. MilesMoney (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have an editor, @Roccodrift:, who is edit-warring to keep out the debate criticism and seems unwilling to discuss their reasoning here. I don't know what to do about it other than revert them. MilesMoney (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

His latest argument is that it doesn't meet WP:BURDEN which I think it does. I see he's been reverted before over sources he didn't like but another editor thought was fine. And that he's never joined in any discussions. It was suggested in November that his editing was precocius but I have no idea if he's a sock. On the other hand, your edit summary "lolwat" was a bad idea. I've restored the criticism, the sourcing seems ok and it's attributed correctly now. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a WP:COATRACK. The radio host didn't criticize the debate program; he criticized Falwell and the university. The material doesn't tell us a thing about the debate program or even anybody's opinion of it, because the actual substance of the material is that John Lofton doesn't think LU is "a truly Christian college". The coat is Lofton's beef with Falwell; the rack is LU's debate team. Roccodrift (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Conveniently, the article is about the college as a whole, so criticism of the college that's focused on its debate program has a place. If you actually read WP:COATRACK, you'll find that it does not apply, in that the criticism is minor and balanced, not at all obscuring the meat of the article. In addition, knowing about the controversy over the debate team being "allowed" to support the pro-abortion view adds value to the article and is not unduly critical. Depending on your political views, you could easily see this as a revelation of how extreme Lofton is, rather than anything negative about LU or Falwell. For all of these reasons, I agree with Doug. MilesMoney (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, the "lolwat" was my immediate reaction to the criticism being removed on such a ridiculous stated basis, but you're right that it's not a great edit comment. While I can't edit my edit comment after the fact, I did immediately follow up by commenting here. MilesMoney (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this issue but I'm not yet convinced that this belongs in the article because I haven't read or found any cogent argument indicating that this person's opinion as expressed one time is particularly noteworthy. The material would fit well in a different section if there are other noteworthy instances of public discussion of the university's credibility as a Christian institution but if there is only this one instance of criticism by this one individual then it seems to be giving that opinion undue weight to include it in this article. At the very least it should be rewritten and integrated into the article more clearly than as a weird stand-alone two-sentence paragraph in the section about the debate team (since the issue really isn't the debate team). ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:COATRACK that makes it ok to insert random criticism into a section simply because it has a tangential relationship to the content, regardless of any purported "balance". This is what's called "fact picking", which is specifically addressed by COATRACK. Lofton's one-time, long ago mention of LU's debate team falls far short of the "significant viewpoint" threshold required by WP:NPOV. It is obviously WP:UNDUE as spelled out in policy:

"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

Looks like that would mean we couldn't include any commentary in any article by one person. Which would be ridiculous. I agree it could be rewritten and inserted elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It could be, but criticism should appear wherever it is relevant, not in a single section. This is criticism about the debate program, not the school in general. MilesMoney (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous, IF that was what the policy actually says. What it does say is that we include "significant viewpoints". So, your starting point is to explain why Lofton, speaking one time and all by himself, constitutes a significant viewpoint. Well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roccodrift (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Roccodrift makes a good point. Why is Lofton a significant viewpoint? It is an opinion blog under the category of "John's Blog". And if this isn't a tiny minority viewpoint, then where are the other references from other notable commentators or journalists? I don't see any.Wolfy54 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly where is the webpage with Lofton's commentary? The link in the article redirects to their homepage. There are 6 commentaries listed via a "Lofton" search, but which has the material. A title for this particular entry would be helpful. Perhaps it qualifies as a newsblog, but the actual material is needed. – S. Rich (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google search brought up an archive: [25]

It's pretty obviously a dig at the school, not the debate program. Roccodrift (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. Falls within WP:BLOGS. IMO, not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If you click on John Lofton, you'll see that he's "an American conservative political commentator and editor of The American View radio program". That's why his comments are notable. MilesMoney (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't tell us anything about why his comments are noteworthy. Can you provide anything more convincing? Is there any evidence that others share his views and opinions regarding this subject? Did anyone take action based on his views and opinions on this subject?

Even if this person's one opinion piece is noteworthy, it's clearly about the university as a whole and not narrowly focused on the debate team. The debate team was merely the example and launching off point. So if this material stays - and right now I'm not convinced that it should - it needs to be rewritten and moved to a more appropriate section. ElKevbo (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Doug, I do believe that in many cases we shouldn't include commentary written only by one person especially when we don't have evidence that others share that opinion or that anything happened as a result of that person sharing their opinion or view. There are some obvious exceptions to this, of course, such as when the individual in question is a noteworthy expert whose opinion is of inherent encyclopedic value. But in general we shouldn't and we don't include lone commentaries by people whose opinions aren't widely shared or influential so I don't understand your objection to this principle. ElKevbo (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Think about it a little bit more, ElKevbo. Where else would it fit? Once the material is moved out of the debate section, then it immediately becomes apparent that it's a trivial blog item and not worth mentioning. The only reason there was even a scintilla of a dispute here is that Lofton made special mention of the LU debate program as a vector for his more general attack on Falwell's administration of the school. And yet the question remains unanswered: who exactly is John Lofton? And why does anyone think that his opinion matters? Nobody has even approached that question with anything like a credible reply. Roccodrift (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet these are not at all persuasive as arguments for removing the material in question. WP:NPOV requires us to be neutral, not biased in favor of the subject of the article. We cannot remove material simply because it's critical. The question here isn't who Lofton is to criticize LU, but who you are to try to silence him. MilesMoney (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not a question of "silencing" Lofton. We are concerned with the project. Besides the BLOG nature of his commentary, including the Lofton material may be (e.g., is) UNDUE. WP is not a soapbox for those who wish to criticize institutions which they do not hold in high regard. – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's up to you to show that it's undue, not merely claim it. Likewise, Lofton is a journalist and http://www.theamericanview.com is a reliable source. Spare me the rhetoric; show us how policy indicates that we should exclude this material. WP is indeed a soapbox for criticism from journalists and other reliable sources. MilesMoney (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am especially concerned about this edit (in a slow-simmering edit war that needs to stop) by DougWeller that has an edit summary of "but the source is RS for this, so WP:BURDEN is met, I disagree about WP:UNDUE, no consensus to remove, go to RSN if you are claiming burden & RS not met." In particular, that the source is reliable is in no way sufficient to ensure that the cited claim is presented with due weight. We are most certainly not obligated to repeat every claim made by every reliable source; that is the very essence of due weight and editorial decision making. So for at least the third time I ask: What is it about this claim that makes it something we should include in an encyclopedia article? It seems to be an opinion presented once by one person. Is this person so incredibly influential and well-known that even one opinion voiced in one article merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article? Is his opinion shared by others? Did his opinion result in any actions or changes? ElKevbo (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to put forth some argument against this criticism being due. MilesMoney (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to allow something to be removed under false pretenses is simply wrong. Burden and RS are clearly met and I'm tired of this being used as an excuse to delete.. 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Even so, how does this fit in with WP:UNIGUIDE? Is this small bit of controversy on topic? Are we informing readers about LU, or are we taking a jab at it because of some sort of POV? I don't think we should include it as encyclopedic material. – S. Rich (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to remind you that neutrality means balance, not censorship. We are obligated to include notable criticism, particular when it's as illuminating as this. Lofton's comments show the reader how LU relates to other groups on its end of the political spectrum. MilesMoney (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

One last thing: you linked to WP:UNIGUIDE, but it doesn't support your case at all. Instead, the section on neutrality warns against boosterism. Remember when I removed those unsourced claims about the debate team? That was boosterism being countered. Remember when you removed the well-sourced criticism about the same team? That's boosterism. MilesMoney (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The section of UNIGUIDE on boosterism blows your argument to pieces, Miles.

"Wikipedia is not the place for academic boosterism – do not praise an academic institution but describe it using neutral language and verifiable facts. Remember to Assert facts, not opinions, substantiate the basis for any opinions, and don't tell the reader what to think."

Roccodrift (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, your argument is utterly devoid of logic. Not one single bit of it applies to this situation. There is absolutely no boosterism involved in reporting notable criticism by a reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No one has adequately demonstrated that this person's opinion - given only once! - is at all interesting and noteworthy. There are no false pretenses just the question of why we should include this one opinion piece in this encyclopedia article. It's not up to us to make the case for exclusion but the burden is on those who argue for including the material. That the source is reliable and that the person has a Wikipedia article are both insufficient grounds for including this opinion piece.

Why can't either of you answer the questions I've asked several times regarding whether this person's opinion is shared by anyone else or this opinion piece resulted in anything happening? Please stop dodging the issues.

And please stop questioning the good faith of editors with whom you disagree. You're both getting pretty close to assuming bad faith and making personal attacks both of which are completely unnecessary and unwelcome. Stick to the facts at hand and please answer my questions. ElKevbo (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, the guy's Wikipedia biography calls him "an American conservative political commentator and editor of The American View radio program". That explains why his opinion on a conservative university is relevant. I don't see anywhere in policy where it says that he has to share his opinion more than once -- is that a criterion of your own devising? -- or any reason to think it's undue to give it two whole sentences, one of which is just background to explain the context of his statement. Did you also invent the criteria requiring other people to share this view or there being some change as a result of it? I have to ask, because I just can't find it in policy. Seriously, if you have a reason that makes any sense at all, you've yet to share it. If you want to assume bad faith and take it as a personal attack, I can't stop you, but you're barking up the wrong tree. The issue here is entirely a matter of there not being any excuse for removing the criticism. MilesMoney (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)