Talk:Baylor University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

01.17.06 Added seal in confority w/ other university pages Tyron 22:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Note: This needs to be removed, as Wikipedia has not licensed the protected mark from the university. Baylor's practice is to not use the university seal outside of the President's Office, Board of Regents, and on buildings and campus physical facilities. More here: http://www.baylor.edu/graphics/ . --

01.10.06 revery to correct error.

--

I fixed the most glaring errors in the men's basketball section, but this page needs work all around -- consolidating information into appropriate sections, etc.

Dancing at Baylor?

No mention of the ban on dancing, for which Baylor was famous until Dr. Sloan ended it in the mid-1990s.

• Brief mention added in Trivia section. Krazos 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Secret Societies

I have placed the verification logo at the top because this page links to and has information on the group Theophilus Athenaeum which does not have proper citation. Wikipedia has clear guidelines for citation which must be followed. Feel free to discuss this further here. IllinoisBrown 03:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)IllinoisBrown

• I took it off and also removed the information listing Theophilus Athenaeum. Until they can provide some verifiable sources that they are nothing more than a group of people who have been around since the early 2000's, publishing about one paper a year, then they are not quite ready to be listed on the main Baylor page. It appears they may be inventing a history to elevate their status. 161.40.22.50 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Is it possible to change the colour of the infobox text to white instead of black? As it is, it's essentially unreadable. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Or the Template:Infobox_University should be used to keep is consistent with other universities.--Nmajdan 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend updating the infobox to the standard format. Practically every other university has changed to the template. -Texink 04:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the template here so you can get a feel of what it looks like and you can just copy the code over when its approved. I also left all the fields in there so you can see what other information can be filled out.--Nmajdan 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There have not been any objections to switching to the standard university infobox, so I made the change today.--NMajdan•talk 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection - I have removed the infobox from this Talk page. The reason for the removal is that the template contains a copyrighted image of Baylor's seal. This is used acceptably under fair use on the article page, but should not be kept on a Talk page. Johntex\^talk 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticisms

Removing sections of articles without any explanation continually is vandalism. If someone feels that the crticism section is wrong, then discuss it here and try to edit it constructively. Cjosefy 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The comments from Tom DeLay are taken out of context here, and contain no informative value here. Furthermore, in response to further questioning about his comments that are stated here he admitted that they were taken out of context, and that he is a 'longtime supporter of Baylor and Texas A&M'. However, in the context of this page these comments show nothing more than DeLay's frustration with his negative, personal experiences at Baylor. How credible can DeLay be, speaking against the University (in this context) while he was expelled for drinking (as noted in the article) and for spray-painting buildings green at Texas A&M (Baylor's rival university), and then getting caught. Of course DeLay would have biased feelings toward both universities after being caught and expelled because of his behavior. These comments only perpetuate a personal agenda, and therefore should be removed from this page. Posting them on DeLay's page would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMDaniels (talk • contribs)

The DeLay comments caused quite a stir when they came up, so I think they deserve mention. DeLay may very well be biased, but there needs to be citations for this. If he claims it was out of context, then we need a citation. If he changed his stance later, then we need a citation. As it stands, the quote is correct, is not out of context, and it cited. Cjosefy 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Scott Drew image

Image:Scott Drew.jpg is currently a fair-use promotional photograph up for deletion. As such, the Scott Drew article is in need of a more freely licensed replacement. Wikipedia would benefit greatly if a member of the Baylor community was able to obtain a high-quality image of Scott Drew and contribute it under a free license. Thanks, Craig R. Nielsen 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Baylor policies

The following was removed from the main article and moved here to continue the discussion:

PLEASE do not place information on this page concerning Baylor's policy on homosexuality as it is not conducive to this article. Baylor is a Baptist University and will ALWAYS uphold the standards deemed "Christ-like" according to the General Baptist Convention of Texas. In spite of this fact, gay students are allowed to attend Baylor and acceptance has nothing to do with sexual preference. There were over 20,000 applicants to the university by last January; please try and prove that Baylor screens them all to decide weather or not they are gay! It is true, as in any religious institution, that there are guidelines concerning faculty and staff and how they display themselves in relation to Baylor. If you have any issues with this, please feel free to contact me personally via wikipedia!

--Baylorbear14 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Baylor2012.jpg

Image:Baylor2012.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Permission of the Texas Legislature"

I have concerns regarding the statement "Amidst concerns of a potential conservative takeover, the university changed the terms of its charter in 1991 with the permission of the Texas legislature in order to establish a governance less directly dependent upon the Baptist General Convention of Texas."

Baylor is a Non-Profit Corporation in Texas and a change to its articles of incorporation would not have required the "permission of the Texas legislature." The acts of the Texas legislature are public, so if this statement is true, it should be footnoteable.

I would propose the following language, "Amidst concerns of a potential conservative takeover, the university changed the terms of its charter in 1991 to establish a governance less dependent upon the Baptist General Convention of Texas." The word "directly" is unnecessary because the change made Baylor less dependent upon the BGCT both directly and indirectly.

Alphatexana 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Institutional Organization Section

I'd propose a clarification in this section. It currently states, "While they share the Baylor name, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Baylor College of Dentistry and the Baylor Health Care System in Dallas are no longer affiliated with Baylor University."

"Affiliated" is a fairly loose term. This article already states correctly that Baylor University's board elects 25% of the Baylor College of Medicine's Board, and that President Lilley is on BCM's board. While the two entities are incorporated separately, the limited shared governance should be sufficient to indicate that they are "affiliated."

There is no shared governance between Baylor University and Baylor College of Dentistry or Baylor Health Care in Dallas, so the statement is correct as to these two entities.

The article should also link to the wiki's page on Baylor College of Dentistry.

Alphatexana 20:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Traditions

Fairly new at this editing wikipedia thing, so I could use some help. I moved the University Mace section from the Trivia to the Traditions section, but it could use some word-smithing as it looks to be taken directly from the Baylor page. Also something should probably be mentioned about other Baylor traditions such as the ring, Ring Out, slime caps, etc, all which are summarized at Baylor Traditions Q&A. I would do it myself, but would probably screw up the whole page and have the discussion board yell at me, so I figured I'd give people a chance to say what they'd like to see on the page. 76.187.184.203 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

semiprotected

for a little while because of an outbreak of ip vandalismDGG (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

a "research" uni!

heaven forbid you omit "research." all notion of prestige would then be lost!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.180 (talk • contribs)

But we aren't a research university, no matter how much the PR office tries to spin it. We're barely under that classification in what, one or two publications? Even then, that's not Baylor's main focus and it never will be. Having that we're a research school a la the Harvards and Stanfords of the universe in the first line is incredibly misleading.76.6.69.31 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Baylor Board Votes to Seek New President

New president on the way. Maybe this should be mentioned in the wiki article (maybe not), I just don't know where to put it if it did deserve mention. http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=51913 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.49.217.215 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I need help expanding the article The Baylor Lariat. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

alumni list

There is already a List of Baylor University people. If this section is expanded, it should be in prose form. See also SMU. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions About Baylor/ Ku Klux Klan/ Basketball murder and cheating scandal

The article would address some important topics surrounding Baylor if it included a section on Governor Pat Neff and his ties to Baylor and his role as head of the Texas Ku Klux Klan. It would also be appropriate to have a fairly substantial discussion of the basketball team murder and cheating scandal that humiliated the school a few years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.103.130 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The KKK matter, if it is fact, should be addressed in the Neff article and include proper citations. The basketball team scandal is included in the basketball article and, it seems to me, is given too much weight even there. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

More Discussion of Basketball Scandal

The basketball murder/cheating scandal led to the downfall of the Baylor power structure, and resulted in a complete re-evaluation of the type of leadership style found at the University. I think a full understanding of what Baylor is all about would benefit greatly from an informed discussion of this horrible event and about the type of University climate that produced a murder. Without this sort of analysis, the Baylor entry seems to be little more than a campus guide probably approved by the Baptist church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.97.194 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, you can find sources that say that this "scandal led to the downfall of the Bayor power structure," etc.? It seems to me that, as old as Baylor is, this event is not as pivotal as you think. It is just one unhappy event in the university's history. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor might take a look at the editions of Baylor Online for some guidance on the downfall of the Baylor elite, including President Sloan as a result of the ugly incidents surrounding men's athletics and the renegade group that Baylor allowed to hijack its basketball program and its reputation. This entire Baylor article deserves a more balanced view than is given. It should not be given serious consideration as a helpful article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.118.112 (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree that the article is so unbalanced that it cannot be given serious consideration by the reader. For instance, there is no discussion of the academic purge that took place a few years ago resulting in the loss of valuable faculty because they were not evangelicals. This is the sort of discussion that, if expanded, would leave the reader with a more rounded explanation of why Baylor is not a top tier university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.66.182 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What, seriously? Academic purge? Getting rid of anyone who isn't "evangelical"? You know I came to this page from another page on Wikipedia that espouses complaints stating that Baylor is too secular, right? The University as a whole is just enough in the middle on religious topics that it catches flak from both sides of any related issue. Find a source and call it something other than a "purge" and try again. J.M. Archer (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticisms Page Discussion

I am challenging the rationale of having a Controversy and Criticisms section. Before I did this, I looked up various other university pages to get an idea of their specific tones. For example, The University of California at Berkeley, perhaps the most controversial university in the United States, does not even have a criticism section. Other private religious schools such as the University of Notre Dame and Oral Roberts University do not have a criticism page either. This page is meant to give facts about the university, not opinions. Most of the criticisms in this section stem from people who signed a code of ethics with the university –both faculty/staff and students are required to do this –and later broke the code of conduct. This article is not the place for a discussion about Baylor’s position on alcohol or sexual orientation, because these are the policies of a privately funded university. In short, this criticism section reflects a very negative view on Baylor’s policies, a view not shared by the vast majority of students and staff who have agreed to the University's code of conduct.File cabinet 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Friend, not all criticism comes from people who broke a code of conduct. I'm a critic, and I didn't break the code of conduct. Even if the perspectives in this section came from people who had broken the rules, that does not necessarily mean that some of those rules aren't ridiculous and/or sorely out of place at an academic institution coming from a denomination known for its advocacy of soul-competency and individual perspectives on religion. (BT, Nov. 11, 06)

Agree with much of the above unsigned comment (by File cabinet). The statement in the section that claims " A number of students organized an off-campus protest with 200 alumni, students and community leaders that garnered national media attention for homosexual students at the institution" is certainly a pure fabrication. A search of "Matthew Bass" at www.msnbc.com, www.cbsnews.com, and www.abcnews.com does not produce results for the year 2003 pertaining to the incident mentioned. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising", and likewise "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Just because something is reported in a local newspaper or from a local television station does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia; read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information". There are also tons of "weasel words" within the section; read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. As the above unsigned comment has been on this page for some time (apparently since 15 September 2006), with no response, I'm going to go ahead and remove the section.

Pesci 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on my comments below, I obviously do not think this is the ideal forum for the discussion of LGBT criticism. But, based on my attendance at the above named protest, I can attest to the attendance of 200 alumni, students and community leaders. Further, news articles appeared on the AP (and published in hundreds of papers), MotherJones Magazine, Bill O'Reilly, CNN, WFAA TV, PlanetOut.com, The Southern Voice, The Houston Voice, Houston Chronicle, The Chronicle of Higher Education... as your parents did not really disappear when you covered your eyes as a baby, so do actual events not really disappear when they fall off the front page of CBSNEWS.com. If you spent time in research, you'd find news articles on all these named sources and many more. But, I could hardly fault you for not taking 3 hours to do research on something this insignificant to most of us.

The following statements..... "It is also worth nothing that, according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising", and likewise "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Just because something is reported in a local newspaper or from a local television station does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia; read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information"." .....could very easily be applied to anything on the Baylor page. It's a matter of characterization. I offer that denying the existence of honest criticism constitutes a soapbox of a different kind.

I do, however, agree with you, that some of what I read in the controversy section was over characterized (in the same way as your prompt dismissal of critics). Still, is simple deletion your answer? That seems to be the easy way out. It's clear that you've deemed all of these criticisms an unfounded, based on your comments here. You'd do better to consider that your lack of understanding of an alternative perspective means that it does not hold validity. (BT, Nov. 11, 06)

TO THOSE IN FAVOR OF INCLUDING A CONTROVERSY SECTION: All universities have critics, and often that criticism is well-founded. Baylor could stand to face its critics on LGBT issues, academic freedom issues, and its inconsistencies with its own religious/Baptist heritage. One of the most frustrating experiences at Baylor is the way the administration silences any and all controversy. To have that controversy silenced here hardly seems in the democratic spirit of Wikipedia. I'd like to think there was a way of keeping Baylor's administration honest about its sometimes bad judgment, and there very well may be, but I doubt Wikipedia is that place. I am not naïve, Wikipedia is not unbiased, but it does strive for that. I think the reason people want to include this criticism section is to counter the clearly unquestioned support for everything Baylor produced by most editors of this page. I suggest that all contributors edit against the non-encyclopedic pro/anti-Baylor agitprop. Further, I suggest the coordination of a blog to discuss controversies; then, link it to the bottom of this page. This is a better way, and you won't have to worry that someone has minced your clear arguments anonymously from some Baylor Library computer terminal. (BT, Nov. 11, 06)

"But, based on my attendance at the above named protest, I can attest to the attendance of 200 alumni, students and community leaders.". This statement is irrelevant; there is no way to confirm the veracity of the claim that you personally attended an event, unless you wish to break your anonymity; but even if you did, one must keep in mind Wikipedia: No original research.

"as your parents did not really disappear when you covered your eyes as a baby, so do actual events not really disappear when they fall off the front page of CBSNEWS.com". However, as I stated before, a search of the websites (which essentially is a search of its archives) revealed nothing, which means that they never covered it (as these news organizations are literally "for the record"). Neither did ABC News, MSNBC (which doubles as a joint-production with Newsweek), nor CNN.

"To have that controversy silenced here hardly seems in the democratic spirit of Wikipedia." Please read Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY".

"I suggest that all contributors edit against the non-encyclopedic pro/anti-Baylor agitprop. Further, I suggest the coordination of a blog to discuss controversies; then, link it to the bottom of this page. This is a better way, and you won't have to worry that someone has minced your clear arguments anonymously from some Baylor Library computer terminal.". People should keep in mind Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states that "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MESSAGE BOARD OR BLOG SERVICE". If people wish to start a blog, providing a link to the blog from within the Wikipedia article is inappropriate because it would be considered advertising.

"Still, is simple deletion your answer?" Yes, given the unencyclopedic nature of the subject matter in the context of issues raised by FileCabinet and the overuse of weasel words to exaggerate the significance of topics.

"It's clear that you've deemed all of these criticisms an unfounded, based on your comments here." Based on the unencyclopedic nature of the subject matter (e.g., an event so non-notable that even CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. would not cover it), the material simply doesn't have a place in Wikipedia, although it may be suitable elsewhere.

"You'd do better to consider that your lack of understanding of an alternative perspective means that it does not hold validity". Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Pesci 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BT, I am AGAINST removing the controversies section. The university obviously has a few past and present meaningful controversies, to remove that section would only be covering them up and removing good information from Wikipedia. There are plenty of pages on Wiki that have PRO and CON sections. FileCabinet, if your reason for wishing to remove information is that similiar information is not on other pages, why don't you propose adding to other pages instead of deleting from this one? If Berkeley doesnt have a controversy section, but you feel there are controversies involved at that campus, you can edit that article and add them. I am always in favor of MORE information, and always against LESS information. And your argument that the only sources of controversy are students who broke the rules is unfounded. The section in question currently doesn't mention any people that broke any rules. It only lists the policies that are in question, and a ranking that is provable. You say the page is for only facts, and that is exactly what I see here. Furthermore, I am not a student at Baylor, but I do find this to be interesting,useful information. If I was considering becoming a student, this information could be vital. Lastly, I don't agree with you just because Baylor is a "privately funded university" means that it should silence all critics and hide all controversial policies. So, the source of funds discerns what sections an article can contain? From reading your comments, it seems you only want to censor this information because it casts a "negative view on Baylor's policies".

"And your argument that the only sources of controversy are students who broke the rules is unfounded. The section in question currently doesn't mention any people that broke any rules. It only lists the policies that are in question, and a ranking that is provable. You say the page is for only facts, and that is exactly what I see here."

You are refering to the current text on the entry. When File_cabinet made that post it contained many other statements concerning people who had left Baylor because they broke school policy to which they previously agreed. Unsigned, you neeed to know what you are commenting on before you make wild accusations.

Wacores 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's not a controversies section on its own, could you at least have someone clarify the section on "vision 2012"--if not drop the section entirely? It's current, but similar plans in the past (to use a BU example, the Council of 150 meeting comes to mind) don't seem to even get mentioned. As it stands right now, it seems as if the article's saying that the vision's main focus is on staying "Christian," which completely misses the point (and not to mention makes the critics of 2012 look pretty bad when they really aren't). IIRC, the vision's biggest focus is on trying to become a "tier one" university while maintaining its Christian focus. Unfortunately, its implementation came with high costs and many VERY controversial moves (such as the let's-pay-freshmen-to-retake-the-SAT scandal, constantly changing guidelines for getting tenure that made it extremely difficult for new hires, the taking out of huge loans for new construction, etc., etc.). To say 2012 is just about "strengthening Christian values" is missing the mark entirely. There's a reason it's been so controversial: its wording is rather vague and quite frankly, hard to disagree with. Who doesn't want to be a nationally-recognized research institution? Who here wouldn't like to see more students living on campus? And all that warm and fuzzy rhetoric about staying close to Baylor's Christian mission is just nice. But the problem is what 2012 doesn't say: it doesn't say how they're going to pay for it all or anything else about the implementation of it. And there's where the problems have been. Many of the most controversial moves in recent years have been "for 2012," even if many of the supporters of 2012's texts did not support those moves. 24.167.6.3 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I went to Baylor and am no fan; but as far as the LGBT stuff goes, who cares? It's a private, conservative Christian school and can do what it wants. If you don't like that environment, go somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.114.65 (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor Changes About Housing

Because I spent 4 years living on campus at Baylor Univerisity (and the latter three as an R.A./Community Leader) I am intimately familiar with Baylor’s Housing Policies. I added the specific percentage (50%) of students Baylor wants on campus in the interest of specificity. In addition, I saw that a citation was needed for the line stating that Brooks Residential College was modeled after residential college at Cambridge Univeristy and other elite schools. I added the necessary citation.

Jnortey08 (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Night of the Organ"

The Halloween organ concert is no more a university-wide event than the symphony orchestra concerts are. As a school "tradition," it is utterly insignificant in comparison to the other school traditions, such as Diadeloso, Homecoming, or Sing. As such, I propose that it be removed from the homepage. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.142.212 (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- could go into a secondary article about campus traditions, though, if one were to be created. Woodshed (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is Darrell W. Six?

And why does he rate a mention in the lead? The magic of Google doesn't pull much of note. Duncan1800 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Parts of article read like Baylor pamphlet?

For instance: "Although the University was founded as a teaching institution, research has long been an important part of its academic life. The University is also working to strengthen the current research environment as part of Baylor 2012. To that end, in 2004 the University dedicated a new 500,000-square-foot (46,000 m2) science complex which facilitates research on a variety of subjects.[20]" This is more appropraite in a brochure or annual report than a wiki article..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlrosen (talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the paragraph about the law school, which crows shamelessly about how well-prepared Baylor law grads are, and how they are preferred and sought throughout the country? The excellent bar-passage stats are fine, but is this article really the place to assert that everyone wants to hire Baylor lawyers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmomlikesmusictheory (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rankings section...

This is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia...

"Baylor graduates are successful, prominent people[citation needed]; in a recent survey nearly 42% of them reported that they had acquired in excess of $1 million dollars in invest-able assets by the age of forty[citation needed]. Many alumni are entrepreneurs, CEOs, or are on track in other positions to become multi-millionaires by retirement[citation needed]. Mark Hurd, the president and CEO of Hewlett Packard is a graduate of Baylor as well as Jeff Dunham, who some estimate to have financial assets well above eight figures."

The whole section is pretty humorous. Especially since it had some misspellings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.218.126 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Very little claimed information is actually sourced and some of it appears to be factually incorrect. Please add the sourced references or else these claims are subject to deletion. Macae (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 3 days

Semiprotected the page for 3 days to try to quell the vandalism related to conference realignment. If anyone has a problem, feel free to reverse without contacting me. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There are still incorrect references to the Southland conference on the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.200.171 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got them all now. That poor article was full of nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bp1996, 8 September 2011

Some jackass aggie changed the conference to southland from big 12 in every place. This should be changed back.

Bp1996 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Already done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Greek Life appears to be a victim of an edit war

Southernrights: You have repeatedly altered the alphabetical format of the list of fraternities in order to place one particular fraternity at the top of the list. Of the several dozen times that you have done this, not once have you provided a single explanation for your edit. If there is justification for your change, then please list it. Otherwise, the listing needs to remain in alphabetical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.26.98 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The first paragraph says that it founded as an all-male institution, while the second says this happened after six year!141.161.73.48 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, from a second commenter, the first paragraph states that Baylor University was founded in 1845 and is the oldest university in Texas. Southwestern University's Wikipedia article says it (Southwestern) was founded in 1840, and also says that it is the oldest university in Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.85.177.195 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baylor University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070205035536/http://www.baylor.edu:80/about/index.php?id=5560 to http://www.baylor.edu/about/index.php?id=5560

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Baylor University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131116040959/http://www.baylor.edu/graduate/index.php?id=82669 to http://www.baylor.edu/graduate/index.php?id=82669#Q
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071022184009/http://www.wacotrib.com:80/hp/content/news/stories/2007/02/04/02042007wactheimmortalten.html to http://www.wacotrib.com/hp/content/news/stories/2007/02/04/02042007wactheimmortalten.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oldest University in Texas

This article claims that Baylor was the first University founded in Texas. Shouldn't that go to Southwestern University in Georgetown, which was founded in 1840 (Baylor 1844).--Cdman882 (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Southwestern had moved around or changed names? a few times. One of the universities that eventually became part of what is now Southwestern predates BU, but Baylor is the oldest continuously-operating university in Texas. Maybe a clarification should be in order, but that's getting down to nitty-gritty semantics.24.167.6.3 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Both Southwestern and Baylor University claim in their respective articles to to be the oldest in the state of Texas. Baylor University is a private Baptist university in Waco, Texas. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas, Baylor is the oldest university in Texas and was one of the first educational institutions west of the Mississippi River.

and Founded in 1840, Southwestern is the oldest university in Texas.

Both can't be the oldest in the state. Can I suggest the comment on oldest in the state be removed or be replaced with the language one of the oldest in the state ? Which makes the phrasing non singular superlative. Appleman1234 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree about being the oldest university. I believe it is the second oldest . Nitaricke (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Title IX scandal

Particular scandals in the history of a school do not warrant their own section. This was already established with the basketball scandal. No other university has a list of all the scandals ever to take hold of the university. It has no place and is inconsistent with other university's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan24 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Other articles do indeed provide details about major scandals in dedicated sections with the best example being Pennsylvania State University. Regardless of what other article have or do not have, this was a major event in the history of the university that culminated in the termination of the university's chancellor and president. Completely omitting this series of events from this article is completely unacceptable and utterly out of line with our core policies and practices.

In any case, stop edit warring. ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The only case is Pennsylvania State University. Schools such as University of Louisville, University of Tennessee, which all have similar scandals have no such article dedicated to them. The status quo was that particular scandals are not included as such was established in the basketball scandal which is extremely similar. I am keeping the page consistent with the practices that have been established and the article will not be allowed until a legitimate argument can be made to break the standard practices established with this page. You can't have one without the other and the other was deemed to not be necessary. This is in no way comparable to the Penn State scandal and will not be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan24 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, if there have been similar historical incidents at other colleges and universities then it may also be appropriate for editors to add sections to those articles, too. In any case, a previous discussion that occurred over six years ago on a different topic and among only a handful of editors by no means establishes a long-term, wide scale consensus. Multiple editors contributed material to this section in de facto agreement that the section should be in the article (albeit expanded, improved, and updated - hence their edits).

In any case, you're continuing to edit war over this and that is unacceptable no matter your rationale or argument. Continue and you'll surely be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You do not get to override the consensus already established. You are outnumbered and the article will be removed. The basketball scandal led to removal of the president and coaches, this is exactly the same thing. Those handful of editors vastly outnumber you and therefore the consensus is established. De facto agreement is not present because you're the only one talking here. Consider this your warning for edit warring and overriding the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan24 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo... this needs to stay. It's significant enough to be listed here. I've been editing university/college articles and have seen many controversy sections, so don't say they aren't out there. You need to get a new consensus. Cardinalfan24, if you continue, I'll report you as well. Corkythehornetfan 07:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is where the consensus has been established already as regard to controversies. As well as here. You have no authority to override the established standards set for this wiki page. Looking here you will find that no university has a article dedicated to scandals that led to the resignation of the schools president. It is inconsistent and inappropriate to include this one. If anything the article should be posted to the Baylor football page just as how the Basketball scandal was addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan24 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I read both of them before I commented the first time. Those conversations took place seven and ten years ago. It changes over time and needs to be rediscussed. Corkythehornetfan 08:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about that Washington Post article! Those all sound like events that should be mentioned in articles if they're not already. ElKevbo (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would not remove it, as it is a know fact. But something that is happening here and now certainly does not need an overly prominent place in the history section. The Banner talk 18:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A few sentences about the university board of trustees firing the president isn't overly prominent by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, placing this material in its own special, dedicated section gives it prominence. ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the place at the end of the article gives it less prominence than highly visible at the beginning of the article. Not everyone will scroll that far down. The Banner talk 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so focused on placing this at the bottom of the article so many readers won't see it? (I also reject the claim that a paragraph at the end of that section is "highly visible" when it's certainly below the fold for virtually all readers.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And please be sure to return to the original question: Why do you believe that this isn't part of the university's history? There's already a dedicated subsection in that larger section specifically focused on the university presidents so why doesn't a paragraph about nationally-known events the led to the firing of a president belong there? Yes, I understand that it's ongoing and there are likely further developments but that's no reason to segregate the information to its own weird section. That, in fact, could easily be construed as WP:NPOV and placing undue weight on it. ElKevbo (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice that one source is date 10 june 2016. So, history? The Banner talk 21:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As a third party, I'm in agreement with ElKevbo that this is a significant enough event that it deserves at least a paragraph in the history section. At any university, a scandal that results in the removal of a president, athletic director, and football coach (often the three highest paid folks, I imagine), is a major event. It is significant history and deserves to go there. There is not reason to hide it at the bottom, nor is there reason for it to have a unique section.170.49.113.19 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the article is in a good place now and should be left as such. It is history. I will be adding more to the history article as there seems to be a jarring gap between 1964 and 2016 Cardinalfan24 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday (see Google news) is not history. The lawsuits are now. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Honors College

Just an idea for how to expand the article. Apparently the "Honors College" at BU, currently listed under the Academics section, is unusual in that it provides Classical education from an accredited university. I came here hoping to read a little bit about it, but there's nothing currently in the article beyond that bare mention. 148.87.19.206 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why a ranking of 701+ is not a useful ranking

The source lists 701 for every school that they do no examine themselves. This means that there are tens of thousands of schools with the same exact ranking of 701+. This is not useful or accurate information and has no place. A global ranking is hard to be precise, however a precision of 25k schools does not meet the standard of this wiki. The consensus has been to remove the ranking as was established months ago. Stop digging up old edits and reverting them, and stop the edit warring. Furthermore, Corkythehornetfan, your bias and obvious fervor to attack and deface this university wiki page is getting old. You have a clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.125.9 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks relevant and sourced to me. Just as the other rankings. The Banner talk 07:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What relevant information does the ranking indicate? It ranks Baylor the same rank as thousands of other schools. That is by definition not a ranking. Consensus was established when the ranking was removed months ago and was left unchanged. You are currently edit warring and it will not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.125.9 (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of that prior discussion? The Banner talk 16:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So let me summarize the present state of affairs:

1. You do not give evidence of any prior discussion
2. Your statement "there are tens of thousands of schools with the same exact ranking of 701+." is proven to be false.
3. You ignore the meaningful discussion here
4. You are edit warring to remove sourced information but you accuse others from edit warring

How do you think that we should take you serious and be considerate with you? The Banner talk 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Where do you get "there are tens of thousands of schools with the same exact ranking of 701+."? According to the QS website (http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-frequently-asked-questions), "At QS, we currently rank over 900 universities across the globe (as of the 2016/17 edition)". The ranking of 701+ IS meaningful - it means of the more than 900 universities ranked, this school is not in the top 700. Contributor321 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer also. The idea that consensus was established because removal wasn't challenged is nonsense. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baylor 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/20111127124529/http://www.baylor.edu/about/index.php?id=48921 to http://www.baylor.edu/about/index.php?id=48921
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308003732/http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/86332227.html to http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/86332227.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Largest Baptist university in the world?

Liberty University claims otherwise, and they claim to have a 7,000 acre campus. I'm inclined to believe that Liberty's claim is correct and Baylor's claim is wrong, and to change this to say that Baylor "claims" to be the largest Baptist university in the world, but I'm going to wait and see if the community has any rebuttal to this since I have a conflict of interest. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:SCAREQUOTES. But as Liberty doesn't claim to be a Baptist university, Baylor might be right. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

LU was founded as Lynchburg Baptist College, and they are still very much affiliated with Thomas Road Baptist Church, which is verifiable through the Breaking Ground textbook I used in UNIV 104. Now if one wanted to argue that Baylor is more strictly Baptist than Liberty, I couldn't argue against that without conducting more research, although I will say that when someone tried to strip the Baptist label from Pensacola Christian College's article, an institution that does not toss the Baptist label around very much in their marketing materials either, the edit was reverted as white-washing. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my pastor said that Liberty and Pensacola aren't really Baptist institutions because they don't use the name Baptist, but we can't exactly use that as a reference in Wikipedia unless he decides to write a book about the subject with his credentials listed under About the Author (something he is very unlikely to do). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Separate "Controversies" header

Ballastrae has begun an edit war to include a separate "Controversies" header in the "History" section of this article. His or her most recent edit summary was "Updated to clearly indicate Known Controversy and to Clearly Define and Point to the section and not allow for it to be hidden within the confines of the School history. This model fits other University Websites that have been called out for perceived ==Controversies=="

First, it's not helpful to say that the material has been "hidden within the confines of the School [sic] history." The series of incidents described in that paragraph are part of the university's history, not something separate. Moreover, it's inaccurate to describe this as "hidden" when there is an entire article about it. Second, our advice for college and university articles explicitly recommends including "notable controversies such as student protests or reforms" in this "History" section. Some other articles probably do have "Controversies" sections and in most cases those sections should probably be integrated into the history section; this is a volunteer-run project with many thousands of people, many of whom make only a few contributions, so we're not always as consistent as we'd like to be.

Finally, the specific way in which Ballastrae has made this change is sloppy. He or she simply added a level 2 header into the existing history section above the paragraph in question. There is other material unrelated to this paragraph that follows so now we have a listing of university presidents included in the new "Controversies" section. This needs to be fixed but I'm not going to continue Ballastrae's edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo You call me out for clearly identifying an oversight. Yet, you can pull other university pages and the information is clearly identified. The change was made as in the other examples. So, if you are going to critique and call me out, please make sure that you have all of the receipts. The university sections are clearly the most BS pages, as the universities that CLEARLY have controversies have either no controversial information listed, as it was removed, and other universities have to be demeaned. Either they are all the same way or none of them should have a controversy section listed. You can clearly look at Notre Dame Fighting Irish and there is NO controversies listed. Basic Google gives - University settles in Doe lawsuit // The Observer

https://ndsmcobserver.com › 2018/01 › university-settles-doe-lawsuit

Jan 18, 2018 - The lawsuit, filed in April of 2017, alleged Notre Dame mishandled the Title IX case involving the unnamed student — referred to as John Doe ... Notre Dame settles sex discrimination lawsuit with former ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastrae (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If there are issues in other articles then you are very welcome to bring up those issues in the Talk pages of those articles. But I'm not at all sure how your Notre Dame athletics team example or even the general complaint ("articles about other institutions don't include their controversies") are meaningful in this discussion. To be clear, my objection is not to including this information, merely to segregating into a special "Controversies" section where it is (a) divorced from other (essential) context and (b) specially highlighted based on the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who added it.

(In nearly every case, controversies arise in an immense context of history and culture; my best guess is that many stand-alone controversy sections are written by editors who either don't know that larger context or don't care about it but in either case the reader suffers. We can and should do better even as we push against the limitations of our shared amateurism.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

talk This may be true, but the system has allowed for this. If one tries to adjust to remove the controversy section for some schools then perceived administrators want to chastise and express if that is the concern then add. So, you may not like the concept of clearly defining the role that these schools have taken, but it is extreme hypocrisy to have a some unneeded information about a school from years ago to indicate that the school was on academic probation with the registering body and place it under a controversy section and place things such as rape under the guise of school history. Come on, that makes no logical sense. And then you call me out because you do not agree with the change. Before you post that I am starting edit war, you may want to look at your own post histories and the slaps on the hands that you have received. Per the guidelines that are allowed on Wikipedia, I corrected the Penn State page to clearly show that there is controversy section. Ballastrae (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNI/AG was created by a consensus of editors and should be followed. I agree with User:ElKevbo. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

When did they move?

When did they move from Dallas to Waco? MightyArms (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft biographies

Please see Draft:James Huckins, Draft:Lily Russell, Draft:Roxy Harriette Grove and Draft:Dock Martin, which I found as abandoned user drafts and have moved to Draft space to be assessed or worked on by others. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

why was the homosexuality criticism removed?

Someone reverted my post but gave no explanation why? It's a very common criticism. Until I receive a reason, it will be re-entered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.113.183 (talk • contribs) 23:33, October 27, 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove your post but I think that it is out of all proportion to the article. If homosexual activist groups have complaint about Baylor then it is a Controversy or Criticism and does not rise to the level of its own heading. Also, it should not take up as much space in the article as it does. Since it is only a minor controversy compared to Baylor’s ongoing struggles with its parent denomination it should take up less space than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.251.119 (talk • contribs) 00:29, November 27, 2005 (UTC)

SBC Category

Baylor is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention; instead, it has chosen in recent years to align itself solely with the more moderate Baptist General Convention of Texas. Consequently, I am removing Baylor from the SBC category, and adding it to Christian schools and universities instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazos (talk • contribs) 23:52, April 12, 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Fixed a few minor misspelled words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.153.142 (talk • contribs) 02:43, October 23, 2006 (UTC)