Talk:Liberty University/Archive 5

"Liberty Way"
The content, as added, does not make sense to me: "The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex". Interactions alone with members of the opposite sex are not prohibited by Christian principles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some context: AlaskanNativeRU and Winkelvi have been edit-warring to change a long-standing version of the lede from "The school's honor code prohibits premarital sex, attendance of dances and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex" to "The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex." These changes add some pointless fluff to the lede (nobody cares what the name of the honor code is, and the lede already makes abundantly clear that the school is Christian). It's also weird to say that something is "based upon Christian principles" in Wiki voice when it's disputed that these prohibitions are Christian. The edits also removed the fact that the school prohibits attendance of dances (something that the sources deemed notable enough to mention when covering the honor code). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is better explained in the body of the article. I agree that it is a bit too extensive and should be kept shorter. Maybe something like "The "Liberty Way" is the school's honor code that is based upon Christian principals. The code notably prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex". Again there's no reason the second sentence needs to be there, it might be better severed with a statement that students are required to follow the code or face consequences. Moving specific rules of the code to the body section.


 * By the way Snooganssnoogans, you have been warned multiple times by multiple different editors for edit-warring on this article (and others) in the past month. Knock it off, how many more warnings need to be given? AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 1 - No,, we haven't been edit warring to change the long-standing version. Got diffs to prove your accusation?  Good luck finding them.  Here is you, however, demonstrating edit warring behavior over the content ,  and then refusing to start a discussion on the content at this talk page.  2 - The Liberty Way honor code of conduct does not prohibit dancing - the source attached to that content states students are prohibited from attending dances (as was explained in the edit summary of the edits you were edit warring over, and you ignored, and then removed that same information with your second revert).  3 - It's not your place to decide readers do not want to know what the name of the honor code is.
 * I see nothing wrong with the content as it is post-AlaskanNative's reversion of your reversion save for one thing: it shouldn't be said in Wiki-voice that the honor code is derived from Christian principles. "Christian principles" are what's found in the Bible and there's nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of which says there should be an honor code for Christian universities, that no-premarital sex is a Christian principle, nor does it mention private interactions with members of the opposite sex.  It's really more likely the honor code is derived from Southern Baptist teaching and doctrine (which does espouse those principles), although I don't know how we would go about saying that if there's no good source to support it.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...why not just cite their rules? I also stumbled across this article. In 2015 they made revisions. j/s Atsme 📞📧 04:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Text ("Liberty Way")
Thanks for the background. I still find Option 2 to be preferable to Option 1: There's no need to introduce the proper name of a nn code, and it seems that we agree that the prohibitions are not based on Christian principles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Options 1: The school's honor code outlines the "Liberty Way", based upon Christian principals: the code prohibits premarital sex and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex
 * Option 2: The school's honor code prohibits premarital sex, attendance of dances and interactions alone in private with members of the opposite sex.


 * Option 3: "The school's honor code, called "The Liberty Way", requires students prohibit themselves from engaging in premarital sex, attending dances, and interacting alone and in private with members of the opposite sex." -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 is far better and reflective of NPOV. "... based upon Christian principals" seems to be WP:OR.- MrX 🖋 01:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How is that OR, when its mentioned in the RS and in the actual honor code. Did you read the source that was listed with this sentence? "Still, the Liberty Way maintains a few more strict, traditionally Christian regulations:" The word Christian is also by far the most used in the page. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Is there an option 3? I feel this could still be worded much better and appropriately for the lede. Perhaps just "The "Liberty Way" is the school's honor code that is based upon Christian principals." and go into detail about the code in the body section. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 3 Complete, better wording, and does not leave the reader wanting more information. I think it's likely true that all private, Christian universities have honor codes for students - no reason why we can't state this one is specific to Liberty U by noting how they refer to it at the school.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 4 - None of the above.  It's surprising to see everyone arguing about the Liberty Way when the cited source turned up a 404 error.  I've substituted an archive version.  I also took out the part about "based on Christian principles", because in the words of the document itself, "Liberty’s community guidelines come in various forms. Some are local, state, or federal laws that must be obeyed by all. Some are based on Biblical mandates or principles that lead us to develop virtues characteristic of a Champion for Christ. Others are just preferences that promote deference to one another while living in the community. However, all are important for creating the kind of university community, we seek to provide."  Lots of sources for them - no NPOV reason to highlight "Christian principles", esp. in the lead.  I didn't bother to resolve whether the guidelines prohibit dancing, or merely prohibit attendance at dances, and so left it as it was.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How can we define "Christian principles" in an objective academic sense? It is more specifically a reflection of Baptist fundamentalist principles, considering Jerry Falwell started out as Independent Baptist. If you compare the Liberty Way to Pathways at Pensacola Christian College or the honor codes at Bob Jones University (which is non-denominational but largely affiliated with Independent Baptists), you will find a lot of similarities because that's the flavor of Christianity that Liberty's policies come from (which is honestly the flavor of Christianity that I personally follow, not that my position means much in the grand scheme of things) PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 15:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't. Another reason to leave the phrase out entirely.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - is it safe to assume the honor code refers specifically to on-campus behavior? Atsme 📞📧 20:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not without specific evidence. It's very common that colleges apply codes of conduct to off-campus behaviors and activities, too. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2, or 3. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and after reading the talk page, I understand the arguments everyone is making, but I was wondering if the lead sentence should be stated: "Liberty University asks its students to abide by its honor code, which prohibits premarital sex, and attending dances."? This seems much more reflective of what is actually reported in the article when it says, "It asks students to adhere to an honor code that forbids pre-marital sex, attending a dance or watching R-rated movies." I understand the lead sentence should be short and concise, but I feel like the integrity of the reported statement is being changed in order to do this. Can you please share your insight on this matter? Thank you Jamie853 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Consolidate wording in lede
I'm looking at the following section from the lede:

Studies at the university have a conservative Christian orientation, with three required Bible-studies classes in the first year for undergraduate students.[13] The university's honor code, called the "Liberty Way", prohibits premarital sex and private interactions between members of the opposite sex.[14][15] Described as a "bastion of the Christian right" in American politics, the university plays a prominent role in Republican politics.[16] Liberty promotes the Christian right viewpoint[17] on matters such as gender roles and abortion.[18] The university teaches creationism alongside the science of evolutionary biology.[8][19]

It really seems a bit much to mention conservatism/republicans/right-wing this many times in a lede paragraph about a non-profit university- which are officially non-political. Liberty although heavily leans conservative and has many conservative speakers, also has liberals and non-political folk on campus, ex) Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders comes to mind in the past few years. I have removed the sentence from the lede "Liberty promotes the Christian right viewpoint[17] on matters such as gender roles and abortion". As it really is just another regurgitation of what is already written. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Throwing in random rankings (without context)
A recent edit added a bunch of rankings for LU programs, but this edit failed to provide the Y in "ranked X out of Y". For example, the edit gave the readers the false impression that LU provided one of the best online programs for veterans (it was ranked #63), however that's 63 out of 64, which means that LU pretty much has the worst online program for veterans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically it is tied at 63. So it is both the worst and second worst. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You do realize not all programs get ranked right? Why don't you take the issue up with US News and World Report that classifies it as the 63 (or whatever) best. Go through any college wiki article and you'll finding countless rankings from US news programs, this is not unique and it's a strange stance to take to not allow it. At this point YOU are doing OR, because I'm not seeing any sources take your stance or wording AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is an example, but I tend to agree that a simple ranking of 63 without context is not useful and may be misleading.Naraht (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Center for Global Ministries
There was an article about The Center for Global Ministries which was an outreach of the Department of Cross-Cultural Studies. The CGM is now dissolved, and there is no mention of either department on this article. I was also not able to find any coverage about the department in independent, reliable sources so I proposed the article about the CGM for deletion last week. User:Atlantic306 felt it would be better merged here than deleted. I cannot determine how it would be usefully added to this article, so I have redirected that page, but left the history alone. If someone feels that the information is useful here, please feel free to add it. ★ Bigr   Tex  20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox should distinguish between online students and campus students
Given that LU's online students are like 90% of the total student body, it's kind of pertinent to make that clear to readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * per H:IB guidelines it should not include excessive length or detailed statistics, we must also strive to maintain consistency throughout university infobox's. The information about the population details is stated clearly in the first section of the lede and many times throughout the article, as well as it's own section. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Students: "94,000 online, 15,000 on-campus" is not excessive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Excessive length. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." hmm this is probably not related... — Paleo Neonate  – 23:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Promotional self-sourced content
This was discussed above. The article contains a number of promotional statements based solely on the school's own website. I will begin removing these. Anything that is not significant enough to be covered by an independent source (which requires more than regurgitating a press release, of course) should not be in the article, because this is not supposed to be an advertisement feature. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is a norm inside the academia, and universities rarely deviate from it. When they do, there is scandal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * is that true for private schools? I understand it would be a topic of discussion if it was a public school run by the government like the controversies surrounding UC Berkeley and free speech. But a private university wouldn't care about that, especially a religious one. BYU or Notre Dame have the same guidelines of implementing standards that protect its religious mission. That's common sense since they are private and target a particular audience. It's not really a freedom of speech issue since that does not exist in any sense of the word for them, which is why I moved the information around. Also the information was just focusing on the school's official newspaper, not anything that prohibits students or faculty from freedom of speech outside that medium, hence why the students were free to make an independent newspaper for the school (which is the norm for most colleges). AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Most private universities are places of legitimate scholarship, Liberty is unusual in being, first and foremost, a place of indoctrination. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know better than the accreditors and regulators, thanks for that... keep your political bias and opinions out of this. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * However we describe this censorship, it's worth inclusion. This degree of control that the university has exerted over content is exceptional and unique, even for a private, faith based university. If there are objections to the phrasing "freedom of speech," perhaps simply describing it as censorship would be a fair compromise. Rytyho usa (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, there is a distinction between a private company, like KFC, and a university. I think that generally speaking in the academia they hate censorship most. I know that there are divinity schools wherein professors took a formal oath that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and will be fired if they violate their oath. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is still included and nothing was removed. There is already a relevant politics and separate speech section in the article so it was moved there. It is just a given that a private religious institution has a right to protect its mission with its own paper... and there's a difference between an official and independent school newspaper (there's no articles about students being prevented from writing about anything they want in an independent medium). I don't see how it constitutes its having another own section when it is already covered being a political event (covered by strictly political papers) all about Trump. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Brainwashing: educational practice disapproved by the speaker. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to Harvard's doctrinal statement? Guy (Help!) 09:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but Boko Haram obviously calls it brainwashing. And so do lots of fundamentalist Christians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? I was responding to AlaskanNativeRU's implicit assertion that their ability to game the accreditation system somehow renders them immune from accusations of indoctrination. Denying that Liberty is first and foremost a place of indoctrination is a wilful denial of its history. That doesn't make it wrong, necessarily, but it is unusual in the context of universities, most of which aspire to be institutionally neutral, and that was the question that was asked. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As much as I agree with you that Wikipedia sides with Ivy Plus and the National Academy of Sciences, indoctrination is relative to one's audience. Their fan base do not see it as indoctrination, they see it as believing the Truth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. The idea of objective fact as the basis of human knowledge replaced rhetorical "truth" in the 17th Century, as far as I can tell, but there is certainly a very determined effort among theocrats to roll that back. We do have a term for a period when society is based on religious Truth&trade; rather than empirical fact: the dark ages. Wikipedia follows fact, not Truth&trade;. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many people are unhappy with modernism. A large majority of world population has only seen liberal societies in movies or at the TV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The same could be said of clean drinking water. This is not a coincidence. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Reason for reverting
My reason for my recent reverts is https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2016/07/i-have-this-book-heres-how-i-got-it.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"Jerry Falwell's Liberty University dogged by growing claims of corruption"
Headline in today's Guardian. Doug Weller  talk 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Close paraphrase in marketing and recruitment practices section
This might be a serious copyright issue because the whole section is a close paraphrase of the source, and even if not, such close reliance on this one source to cover the university's sales practices probably isn't a good idea considering the critical tone. Should we rewrite it, or just 86 the section altogether? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be removed. I attempted to remove it, but my edit was reverted. SunCrow (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Structure of academics section
I think information about how the university is organized (i.e. schools and colleges, details about what buildings are about to be built, number of degree programs under each college, enrollment figures by program, etc.) takes up a disproportionate share of the academics section of the article, especially given all the subheadings. I think it makes sense to turn them into a bulleted list to ease readability, and probably take out some of the less relevant facts. I also think it makes sense to rename the rankings subheading "rankings and student outcomes" and move non-ranking/outcome related info (e.g. info about the endowment size, enrollment figures, etc.) to other parts of the article. Dysase (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to Covid-19
I think it would be germane to add information about the university's response to the Covid-19 outbreak, given that it has generated substantial national coverage in e.g. the NY Times, CNN, and the Washington Post. Not sure where it would go -- separate section, a subsection under history, or become part of a new controversies section -- but happy to hear feedback. Dysase (talk)¨ —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I think this fits nicely under history. Abesottedphoenix (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be included as it's notable and relevant, but respectfully disagree that it fits nicely under history, unless a subsection header in history was made. Otherwise I propose a separate subsection under "COVID-19 response (controversy?)" or similar. Thoughts anyone? Oathed (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's enough material for a controversies section -- don't have the time to put one together myself right now, but I'm all for making one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysase (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Time to address the self-sourcing
We've been around this loop before. There are too many references to Liberty's own website. Also, unlike most college campus newspapers, the Liberty Champion is controlled by the Falwells so is not independent. We recently clarified WP:SPS to note that use of self-published sources should be de minimis (following a dispute on the Knights of Columbus article, where half the references were to the organisation's own sites). If some trivia has no independent source then it is WP:UNDUE. There's also no need to use Liberty.edu as a source for facts such as Falwell being the President, as it's covered in multiple independent RS.

Example: the degrees offered by the school of business are listed, all sourced to liberty.edu. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote the degrees offered by Liberty, it's to reflect what independent sources say about them. Wikipedia is not a not an indiscriminate collection of information.

It is time to reduce the self-sourcing. Guy (help!) 11:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No comments? Over 70 of the cited sources are to the Liberty website, and most of the content based on these cites is promotional. Guy (help!) 21:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS allows for uncontroversial information to be self-sourced. Further, most of that information will have originated with the institution even if it republished by others so I'm not sure what we gain by citing other sources. But if there is promotional or controversial information that is only sourced to the institution, feel free to remove it! ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But Liberty is a controversial topic (no competent Wikipedian could deny this) and self-sourced marketing and PR claims should always be removed regardless of topic. These things fall into two categories: things that require a secondary source to show that they are considered significant by anyone other than promoters of Liberty, and things that already have secondary sources so don't need the self-sourcing. We had exactly the same argument at, and it ended up with the editor who kept adding the self-sourcing being topic banned. This is Wikipedia. You are not supposed to draw large amounts of an article from primary self-published and affiliated sources. A quarter of the sources here are liberty.edu or affiliates. That is unaccepotable -0 and indeed makes the article look like spam, which should concern you, as you appear to be a massive fan. Guy (help!) 10:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You really need to review WP:SPS (and WP:AGF); there is nothing wrong at all with citing the university for basic, uncontroversial facts. What specific information or sources in this article that you think are a problem? ElKevbo (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand both. SPS allows for minor and uncontentious facts to be included from primary sources, but anything that's challenged requires a secondary source., You already know this. You also know that basing large chunks of an article on promotional content from the subject is a violation of WP:NPOV. Guy (help!) 16:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
The section on the pandemic is terrible. As it stands readers aren't told that there was a controversy or that there will be no prosecution of the journalists. It also doesn't represent the sources well. I'll also note that the lead doesn't give the various controversies enough weight. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the pandemic stuff is still developing and probably should not of been added at all yet. What sources and info would you add? I disagree that the pandemic stuff specifically is due for the lead just yet as it has not been shown to have much impact on the institution as a whole. What other controversies would you add to the lead? PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , to be fair, much of the article is terrible - every attempt to remove primary-sourced PR is met with strong resistance. Guy (help!) 16:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * in the mainstream media it got a lot of negative coverage, yet between your reverting my attempt to give it some balance (I've got a raging toothache and that's all I could find fast), it now looks like nothing. It doesn't even suggest there were any problems. I'm  not suggesting the pandemic stuff belongs in the lead. Do you seriously think that the school is that uncontroversial that all that belongs in the lead is positive material?  "Bastion of the Christian right" looks praising it if you are a supporter of the school.  Doug Weller  talk 16:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all, nor am I suggesting that. I am just saying being vague is not helpful and was looking for specifics. Also for the pandemic stuff it does say over the objections of the city's mayor and contrary to the practices of most U.S. colleges and universities reacting to the pandemic. Which to me looks like refuting the bad idea of letting students stay. PackMecEng (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Liberty University Controversies, Scandals, Investigations, and Lawsuits
I suggest that there be a separate section involving Liberty University controversies, scandals, investigations, and lawsuits. Any of these entries, however, should be well documented (e.g. NY Times). Here's a sample (that doesn't include the most recent sex and business scandals).


 * 1) Jerry Falwell Junior calling on the FBI to investigate a coup by former LU Board members and employees
 * 2) Coronavirus denial
 * 3) Politico piece on how Falwell promoted a culture of fear
 * 4) Black players quitting the football team due to racism
 * 5) NY Times article on their boiler room enrollment practices
 * 6) Daily Beast article on Pentagon contracts
 * 7) Donating money to Roy Moore
 * 8) CIO John Gauger rigged election polls to favor Donald Trump
 * 9) Threatening to have a progressive evangelist arrested if he came on campus
 * 10) Ranked worse than University of Phoenix in Washington Monthly
 * 11) Liberty U grads turn in diplomas
 * 12) Questions about LU's non-profit status

CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/27/becki-falwell-affair-liberty-university-student-band-jerry-402559


 * Here is a new one on the list Jerry Falwell Jr and Becki Falwell are named in a sexual misconduct allegation where the accuser a male student who was at Liberty in 2008 is alleging that Becki Falwell grabbed his male parts. 2601:640:C600:3C20:38ED:B239:80B9:9DDC (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am normally opposed to "Controversy" sections in articles; they tend to become collections of NPOV, Wikipedia editor-selected gripes, complaints, and "gotchas." Moreover, a section dedicated specifically to controversies tends to present them in isolation from the surrounding history and context that are critical for readers to understand if they're to understand the importance of the noteworthy controversies that have occurred.
 * But I also acknowledge that some institutions have indeed experienced a tremendous amount of controversy that requires us to adopt a different approach. Indeed, some institutions are noteworthy partially or completely because they are controversial. In those instances, it may be necessary to have one or more sections of the article dedicated specifically to these controversies. I concede that this may be the case for this institution. However, that does not in any way relieve us of the necessity of grounding that material in the necessary context; in fact, having one or more separate sections likely makes that more difficult and requires us to make a dedicated effort to include context in that section(s). ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"The Center for Global Ministries" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Center for Global Ministries. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 15:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent coverage of criticism of Falkirk Center
See Liberty University students call for shutdown of Falkirk Center for 'tarnishing' Christian witness.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   17:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Governance and leadership
Jerry Falwell Jr. is identified as the "founder". That is incorrect.151.200.20.252 (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Liberty University's Great Experiment (2020-2022)
At some point, it may be worthwhile to have a separate subsection in History about Liberty University's leadership decisions during the Covid19 pandemic of 2020-2022. So far, Liberty University has gained in student enrollment during the Covid pandemic as the institution has defied mainstream policy regarding vaccinations, masks, or social distancing.--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Liberty University is primarily an online college
One of the problems with this article is that it has outstanding detail about the Liberty University campus in Lynchburg, but much less about Liberty University online--even though the online school represents about 80 percent of the students and that online revenues have made the school more profitable for entire organization. It also appears the two schools are different, in the type of students and staff, and in the quality of the education offered. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

ProPublica report
@Snooganssnoogans, re this edit, I already added mention of the report in the safety section, where it seems more relevant. In order to go in the history section, we'd want to see what the fallout of the report is, and it's too soon for that. (Also, as an aside, please always use summaries when adding highly contentious material, and this is certainly highly contentious material even though it's very well justified by an WP:RSP-greenlit source.) Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to rework the content as you wish so that it fits in better. I haven't paid much attention to editing on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The page definitely needs restructuring overall; there's lots of content currently split or duplicated between different areas. I think the report fits best in the safety section rather than the history section. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Need section on the Center for Creation Studies and Young Earth Creationism
Creation studies are an integral part of Liberty University. So why isn't there a section on Liberty University's Center for Creation Studies, Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and YEC's basic assumptions (e.g. that the words in Genesis should be taken literally and that the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old)?

--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)