Talk:Lipscomb University/Archive 1

Campus information
Campus Information: This section needs to be updated to include the new Bible Building. Also, adjust what classes are taught in Burton.

Rules
This section is a mess. Right now we have attempts to make the rules seems shockingly backward tempered by attempts to make them sound less shocking (with phrases such as "though not in recent years"). The Rules section should reflect the rules as they now stand, not a history of the rules. Not a POV. There should be a link to the current policy handbook. The text of the entry should condense those policies into a list. Sex, Drinking, and Smoking (etc.) probably deserve different bullets. Should punishments be included or are these handled on a case-by-case basis? Should rules for faculty be included together with those for students?Josh a brewer 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The section remains a mess. The first sentence is currently this: "Full-time students are required to attend both a Bible class or chapel services each school day."  Apparently, they don't have to take English. Josh a brewer (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Begining Article Cleanup
I would like to hear from other users on how to proceed on cleanup of this article. Thanks for input into any of these or other areas of the article. — PikePlace (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the worst area right now is the Campus information area. This section has been rewritten so many times, it does not even flow in a sensible manner.
 * Should we divide this area into building designations (ie Academic Buildings, Administrative Buildings, Residence Halls, etc)?
 * Should the Lipscomb 2010 expansion program be in its own section?
 * I really think the Bond ruling could be in its own section. Lipscomb set a precedent for other private religiously affiliated universities to receive bond money by taking the case to the Supreme Court. Seems this area needs some expansion as well.
 * I agree about the Rules section. However due to the fact that the rules sometime change (as frequently as semester to semester), and no apparent people have been fired from the university in recent years, its hard to say that it is a rule. The rule itself seems to make the university seem "more conservative" than it truly is. Some research into the campus life pages may bring to light current rule standings for students.
 * Does anyone know of any precedent for listing of Alumni of the university. It seems some universities have many people listed, some who cannot be verified as notable, but are never removed. Many alums have been removed from this area, because of their inability to be verified as notable.


 * Let me answer those in reverse order: 4. Alumni are generally considered notable if they are notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles. 3.  The rules sections of all cofc schools are just as messy and/or inaccurate, unfortunately.  Not sure what can be done, because (as you mentioned) the rules change so often.  2.  True, the bond ruling was a significant moment in church/state legal history, not to mention the fact that it was a very important test of just how pervasively Christian an institution Lipscomb is/was, and it deserves a fuller discussion here.  1.  True, the campus section is horrid.  However, I see no need to divide buildings into subcategories.  In fact, listing all of the buildings simply makes the campus sound smaller than it is.  (The large school where I currently teach has foolishly spent over 1500 words describing its campus, so a small school should be able to get away with less than half that much verbiage.)  In fact, notable constructions may stay in the history section; ongoing development should be addressed only if it significantly changes the current boundaries of the university's property (e.g., say, they bought Green Hills Mall and gave it to the Math Department or closed Granny White Pike and turned it into a pedestrian thoroughfare).Josh a brewer (talk)


 * I would say be careful when going by the Lipscomb website. They don't update it as regularly as they should.  I am a current student at Lipscomb and I will say some of the claims on the Wikipedia site are inaccurate.  For example, the Babbler.  I used to write for the Babbler but the Babbler is no longer printed at Lipscomb.  I've tried to say that by editing the site but it keeps getting changed back.  In the Campus Life section, there is nothing about the food options.  That should be fixed because that's a VERY important aspect of the campus for incoming freshman who might happen to look it up on Wikipedia, since it will affect them three times a day every day if they become a Lipscomb student.  Jessica (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.146.229 (talk)


 * I'm sorry about your edits getting reverted, but I've tried to keep unsourced material from getting in here. Wikipedia requires sources for most everything added to an article, so the reverts are just trying to abide by that. To address your two issues, I think something could be changed regarding The Babbler being online-only, though it is concerning that their two websites are so terribly outdated. I should ask...is Babbler intended to be published online now, or have the publication's doors been shuttered entirely? Also, regarding food options, that isn't at all encyclopedic. When adding things to the article, don't think of it as a news source. Try and imagine that if this were Britannica or some other dead tree encyclopedia, would they have that information? Certainly not food options. Write an article as if it were being read by someone 20 or 30 years from now...if the information being added would not be relevant to them, then there is no reason to add it. Present things from a historical frame of reference. Remember, this isn't supposed to be a user guide, but an encyclopedic entity. By all means add new material, but do your best to find sources for the information, and if you need any help with writing here, leave a message on this talk page or on my user talk page. I'll help in any way I can. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Endowment
The current endowment figure cites the standard US News and World Report listing for Lipscomb: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/nashville-tn/lipscomb-3486 This figure is about 78-79 million. It has not changed for several years, so I think it is an old entry that has not been updated.

However, this document lists something altogether different: http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2009_NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values.pdf

If you use the "search" feature, you can see that this tracks the 34% loss that the Lipscomb University endowment suffered between 2008 and 2009. Lipscomb went from 72 million to 48 million, according to this study. That is by far the largest loss suffered by a C of C school Pepperdine University lost 27% of its endowment, Freed Hardeman University lost 26%, Harding University lost 18%, Abilene Christian University lost 16%.

Notably, Oklahoma Christian University leapfrogged Lipscomb University by losing "only" 14% of its endowment, astonishingly good when compared several hundred with other colleges on this list. Therefore, if these figures are correct, Oklahoma Christian now has a bigger endowment than Lipscomb University.

That's newsworthy, though I don't know if it is encyclopedic enough for inclusion here. What do you think? 168.91.255.100 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, yes. But I'm not sure if it is useful for inclusion here because we don't have any real information (yet) as to why its endowment suffered so badly, nor do we know right now how its endowment numbers have tracked over the course of the university's history. So context is one issue. Recentism is another...wiki articles often suffer from only talking about recent issues rather than providing a full historical accounting. Understandable, but not desirable, and I think this may be one of those situations. I will update the infobox with the new numbers. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lipscomb University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151109231238/http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp to http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306044753/http://www.sacscoc.org/details.asp?instid=25520 to http://www.sacscoc.org/details.asp?instid=25520

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Title
Since the name of the school has changed to Lipscomb Academy, I was wondering if an admin could change the title. Haon 2.0 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The name of Lipscomb University has not changed, however the associated secondary and primary school has. That page can be accessed at Lipscomb Academy. PikePlace (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lipscomb University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207053946/http://babbler.lipscomb.edu/page.asp?SID=144&Page=468 to http://babbler.lipscomb.edu/page.asp?SID=144&Page=468

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)