Jump to content

Talk:Bob Jones University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

introductory comments

While I don't disagree with any of the facts presented, shouldn't this article say a bit more about the university? If the only goal is to criticize it, then you could mention that they have also been criticized for denying that Catholics and Mormons are Christians. Personally, I think it would be much more helpful for Wikipedia to include some basic information like when the school was founded, whether they offer postgraduate degrees, which academic programs or sports teams are strongest, and so on. And who the heck is Bob Jones? If someone comes to Wikipedia to learn about Bob Jones University, it's probably because they already heard it was racist and want to learn more background information. And if a prospective college student is wanting to learn more about the university from third party sources, it's fine to point out its racism, but we can serve those people better by also providing more factual background information. And no, I'm not volunteering to do the actual research for this one. ;-) --Wesley

Agreed, but, again, my interest in finding out more about an institution (one struggles to accept it as a university, with such an illogical attitude) with such ridiculous rules is about zero.

Oh, well - other than the dates, I added what *I* care about, which is the Museum. I can't tell you how odd it is to find a museum like this in Greenville, SC. --MichaelTinkler

One question I'd like answered is "Do any African-American students actually attend the university?" --Robert Merkel

Yes, there's usually at least one N...er, Black student, usually one that believes in the same brand of Christianity that BJU espouses. When I was in Ghana in 1988 I ran into a guy who had been accepted to BJU, who was black, but I don't think he got a student visa. The guys who work for the State Department aren't that stupid: you can't get a visa if you're clearly planning on violating it. GregLindahl

Is it correct to say that Ronald Reagan "supported the school's racial discrimination", or that Ronald Reagan "supported the school's right to racially discriminate". There's a world of difference. I'm making the change right now on the assumption that Reagan, a semi-libertarian in some respects, might well have supported their right as a private institution to admit who they like, while at the same time not supporting their policy itself. --Jimbo Wales

Well, the issue was not about whether they had the right to racially discriminate; it was about whether they were entitled to a tax exemption if they were going to do so. Withdrawing the tax exemption still hasn't stopped the racial discrimination that lead to its withdrawal. Frankly, I think the main reason Reagan supported them was because of his desire to get conservative South Carolina voters, a significant percentage of whom like Bob Jones University. I agree though that he probably supported them being allowed to have the policy and still get a tax exemption, without actually agreeing with the policy. But I don't like the formulation "supported the school's right to racially discriminate" -- it seems to imply that they have a right to racially discriminate, and he was supporting their right -- it really should say he supported the school's alleged or claimed right to racially discriminate. -- SJK

I accept your change. My wording was based on my own view -- racial discrimination in any form is vile and despicable, immoral collectivist behavior -- but that private religious organizations do in fact have a right to engage in it if they so desire. Your wording is more limited and unless and until we find out what Reagan actually did say, is certainly less speculative.

For what it's worth, I am content to let any group adopt race as a standard for inclusion. I meet feel miffed about not being able to join, but freedom of association should take priority. I do think it strange that a church or university would have restrictions based on race, but I can think of no rule fair enough to apply to Bob Jones U., the "historically black" colleges of Atlanta, the senate's Black Caucus, etc. If a bunch of people want to isolate themselves from the mainstream, more power to them. But, the government shouldn't have to do them any favors. For universities, that means no tax-exemption unless they can convince the courts that their race policies (a) are an integral part of their religion and (b) . . . hmm, this issue is more complicated than I thought. I'm stuck between honoring freedom of religion on the one hand, and hating racial discrimintation with a vengeance on the other.

Anyway, good rewrite of the article.

Ed Poor

Ed, do you realize that there are many white people who go to historically black colleges? There are no race based rules. Big difference. I went to a school that's 70% Jewish, and they even gave me a scholarship in part because I'm not. GregLindahl

"traces its history to a school founded in 1927 by [Bob Jones, Sr.]?, an evangelist and revival-preacher."

Is "revival-preacher" even an English word?

It is understood by speakers of English. It is well formed (see Morphology (linguistics), entry compounding; still to be written)

I am a speaker of English and I don't understand it. :-)
OK, but at least you probably can deduce that it must mean a person who preaches revival (whatever that is specifically ;-) ). I just was opposing the question that it is not an English word. It is. Another thing is if it is understood here what it means. Anyhow this talk seems OT.

"After that it adopted its current racially discriminatory policy, which it retains to this day (2001)."

I would like very much to see some expansion/explanation re this policy.
The policy is the one mentioned in the article -- students who marry or date members of a different race from their own are expelled.
Added/clarified this in the entry. Thanks.

"The college, like many other fundamentalist Christian schools, is not accredited due to concerns about governmental control over policy or curriculum."

- changing this to: "The college, like many other fundamentalist Christian schools, has not sought accreditation due to concerns about governmental control over policy or curriculum."

I assume this is correct and more acurrately reflects that BJU's lack of acreditation is their idea rather than imposed by government. If this is wrong please correct.

BJU is getting accreditation http://www.bju.edu/aboutbju/studentlife/collegian/article.php?article_id=90

209.20.226.xxx - I checked their website and I can find nothing about them dropping their policy against interracial marriage or dating. Can you please provide an exact reference? -- SJK

Removed from the main article:

Interracial Dating and Marriage: Why is the focus being placed on something which is such a small and insignificant part of the University's whole, making it a media obsession? The last two or three generations of students who have graduated from this institution never once heard a discussion of this policy. It is not something that is preached or talked about. Because of its insignificance to us, it has been dropped in the interest of the greater good of the University's Gospel and Christian educational mission. ... Bob Jones University's policy regarding interracial dating was more of an opposition to the rebellious and defiant antichrist spirit of the promoters of one-worldism than to interracial dating itself. Many who date and marry interracially are just as opposed to one-worldism and the spirit of Antichrist as we are.

This is a commentary on the article, rather than something that can be integrated into it. If you want to comment, do so here on the talk page. If you wish to edit the article, do so, but do so in accordance with wikipedia policy, particularly the neutral point of view. --Robert Merkel 15:27 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

Whoops! I should read the article more carefully. I assumed that this was just some random undergraduate's commentary on the article. Sorry. It takes a bit of getting used to a university that would make such a statement.... --Robert Merkel 15:30 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

A note on the University Creed:

The creed embodies the foundational truths of the Christian faith. While the students are required to memorize the creed, they are not required to sign it as a statement of faith, nor is an affirmation of this creed a prerequisite for admission.

On interracial dating:

The University's policy on interracial dating at one time was that such dating should not take place without parental permission. The history of the policy is as follows: A student of Oriental disposition began dating a Caucasian. The Oriental student's parents complained to the University about the fact that their child was dating someone from another race. In order to solve the problem, the University decided to require parental permission before dating between races could commence.

The University has since removed the policy. (By the way, the University is constantly reviewing and updating its rules and policies in order to better accomplish its goal of growing Christlike character.)

I'm curious as to why Mr. Merkel (above) is so concerned about the African-American students while he seems to be unconcerned about students whose origins are Asian, South American, Mexican, European, etc. Do I detect any racial bias on his part?

Many Asian students get their higher education at the University. There are also students from Africa, South America, Europe, etc.

--just some commentary from an undergraduate who actually knows what he or she is talking about
04:00 Aug. 24, 2003 (UTC)

The article does not suggest that BJU is racist, other than to point out its erstwhile policy against interracial dating, although this talk page does have some comments suggesting that BJU would be inhospitable to black people.
But, I find your story of the interracial dating ban as being a kind of convenience to solve the parents problems to be somewhat dubious. I should note that BJU's web site at [1] makes a similar-sounding claim: "Did the University?s dating policy originate to regulate black-white relationships? No. It was first stated in the mid-1950s when dealing with an Asian-Caucasian dating couple."
It might be helpful to verify this. I find the story rather strange because:
  • This would mean that BJU has invented a story about how interracial dating is related to "one-worldism" just as a favor to one student's parents in the 1950s. At the above page, they write "Bob Jones University's policy regarding interracial dating was more of an opposition to the rebellious and defiant antichrist spirit of the promoters of one-worldism than to interracial dating itself." The "One-worldism" section of [2] suggests that a prevailing view at BJU is that one-worldism, a single world government, will make it easier for a corrupt ruler to do the Antichrist's work, and thus "The more divided the world, the easier it is to preach the gospel. A united world is not in the interest of God's people". It strikes me as amazing that people at BJU would, to acquiesce to parents, either (1) make up a whole story of how concerning one-worldism is, just to justify the anti-interracial dating policy or (2) make an association they believe to be spurious between interracial dating and their true concerns about one-worldism.
  • The current Wikipedia article says that BJU lost its tax-exempt status because of the interracial dating ban, although the BJU site does not say why it lost its tax-exempt status. If the current Wikipedia article is correct, it's odd that BJU would go to the trouble of lengthy court cases in the 1980s for an event that happened in the 1950s.
  • I doubt many universities would make up racially based policies in order to serve parents' concerns.
For these reasons, it seems that the now-defunct BJU policy against interracial dating was based in some strong views, and not a simple innocent policy invented and forgotten. I should concede, of course, that the fact that BJU repealed the policy in the face of the negative media attention during the 2000 presidential election does suggest that the policy is not of totally absolute importance. I wonder what the real history is.
Zashaw 05:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Weakened the statement

He donated his paintings to a museum at the University. The BJU Museum & Gallery now is considered the greatest collection of religious art in the Western Hemisphere.

to say "...one of the greatest...". Saying "the greatest" sounds pretty suspicious, and would need more support or qualification: who says it's the greatest, and what criteria are they using (largest collection? largest building? best curation? etc.)? Based on a couple of google searches, I'm convinced that "one of the greatest" is reasonable, but the superlative requires more support.

Zashaw 23:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It may not be the greatest, but it is the largest.

Mydotnet] 5 Sep 2004

Fixed a number of things vs. the previous version in the campaign section:

  • The previous version gave the misleading impression that Bush's speech actually denounced the University's policies. Not true: the Bush campaign only denounced them afterwards, though perhaps on the same day (I'm unable to find documentation of this, so I wrote "promptly").
  • The previous version stated that Bush apologized for appearing at the University. Not true: Bush apologized for failing to speak out about the racism and anti-Catholicism. (Even John McCain, Bush's opponent in a very hard-fought primary, said that it's fine to speak at places whose policies you disagree with, so long as you speak out against those policies.)
  • The previous version said "what some view as" BJU's anti-Catholic sentiment. Now, I'm all for NPOV, but when the University's founder calls it a "satanic cult" (there's a lot more where that came from, BTW), most reasonable people would conclude that there is at least a history of anti-Catholic sentiment. I understand that BJU is currently officially ecumenical, so I changed the paragraph to say "history of".

k.lee 20:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interracial dating, further notes

A couple of relevant links:

An excerpt from the FindLaw summary of the case:

The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, 5 but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race.

Following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in McCrary v. Runyon, 515 F.2d 1082 (1975), aff'd, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), prohibiting racial exclusion from private schools, the University revised its policy. Since May 29, 1975, the University has permitted unmarried Negroes to enroll; but a disciplinary rule prohibits interracial dating and marriage. That rule reads:
"There is to be no interracial dating.
"1. Students who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled. [461 U.S. 574, 581]
"2. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled.
"3. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled.
"4. Students who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University's dating rules and regulations will be expelled." App. in No. 81-3, p. A197.
The University continues to deny admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating. Id., at A277.

And furthermore:

Petitioners contend that, even if the Commissioner's policy is valid as to nonreligious private schools, that policy cannot constitutionally be applied to schools that engage in racial discrimination on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. 28 [461 U.S. 574, 603] As to such schools, it is argued that the IRS construction of 170 and 501(c)(3) violates their free exercise rights under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. This contention presents claims not heretofore considered by this Court in precisely this context.

Judging, therefore, by the public, on-record statements of the University, its claim that the interracial dating ban was instituted at the request of the parents of an Asian student is at least misleading. The lawyers for the school argued quite specifically that, because they had a sincerely held religious belief that interracial dating was un-Christian, it should be constitutionally protected from being classified as a non-charitable organization. Furthermore, the specific prohibition on enrolling "unmarried Negroes" reveals quite clearly the primary aim of the restrictions in practice (namely, to prevent intermingling of black and white students), regardless of whence the policy was first invoked.

Moreover, the suggestion that interracial dating could occur "at one point" with parental permission is misleading. The ca.-1970's policy quoted in FindLaw makes the ban quite clear. Students who date or marry interracially shall be expelled. Students who advocate interracial dating shall be expelled. Students who associate with groups that advocate interracial dating shall be expelled.

Simply stated, judging by BJU's own statements in the public record, BJU's description of its interracial dating ban is revisionist history. k.lee 05:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Racism

Neilc, on your reversion. The text that had been inserted, looking at it, was pretty loaded and POV. But it would have been better to edit it into something constructive. Then again, do as I say not as I do; I guess I could be more helpful by actually doing that myself, but I'm not sure how. Just a passerby, don't know much about BJU. And you'd probably just revert me too? But the point is: the facts are, Bob Jones University is popularly associated, whatever the truth with racism and segregation, partly including/due to its interracial dating policy. This is a fact. In fact, it is probably what it is most known for to those who don't know much else about it. Leaving that out entirely of the article I think does a disservice to Wikipedia. Sorry for not contributing much actual text, but given that someone's reverting, there's clearly no point to it, and I'm not very keen up on BJU you can argue. But, thoughts? Shouldn't this be mentioned? D. G. 08:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No response two days later. Apparantly you prefer to revert first and answer questions never. Neat. I've taken that as a mandate to revamp the article. Please, instead of reverting, do not remove information blanketedly but take the time to actually change the article to make it better, rewording or reforming what you believe needs to be done so. Obviously there's controversy; that is what this talk page is for. Communications solves problems! Communicate! Communicate, please! D. G. 09:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again reverting "==Movie references== In the Tom Hanks motion picture remake of The Ladykillers, an old black woman makes frequent reference to donating frequently to Bob Jones University in a case of dramatic irony.". Sorry to have not started the discussion on my previous reversion. If you want to say that BJU is popularly associated with racism, then say that. I think the current article does (and, for that matter, previous versions did). I found the movie reference to be a bit smarmy and irrelevant (and, I admit, a bit entertaining). Moreover, it requires the editorial judgement that the references are intended ironically -- if you know that the character must have intended the lines ironically, why not just say that many people think BJU racist? Zashaw 23:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I thought about it; you're probably right. I'm not putting the movie reference back in. I wasn't entirely sure whether it was appropriate to put a movie references section for a university, but I had seen many such "movie references" sections on other articles, so, that lead me to it. But on more consideration, yeah, not really very relevant. It's just that I'm concerned at what looks to me like some sort of weird bizzaro-world revisionistic article. D. G. 00:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Word usage: Blacks/Negroes/Whatever?

Some dope edited "Negroes" to "Blacks", claiming it was a "typo." (While leaving the reference to Negroes just a line underneath intact, yeah, we love inconsistency.) I've reverted it-- I believe that's the term the school used, so that makes it the most appropriate. Still, I'm not sure. What word should be used? Tell me? In fact, are there any standards on this sort of thing on Wikipedia, does anyone know? I just don't want to end up putting some stupid long-winded total baloney like "persons of African-American descent." D. G. 10:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The KKK has several choice words for black people, none of which are used in the article Ku Klux Klan. We don't follow the subject's choice of language in articles. We can say that BJU uses the word "negro" but we shouldn't use that word ourselves. I changed it to "black people." The manual of style prescribes that we use terms by which groups self-identify. "Black people" is preferable to "blacks" but in my opinion, both are acceptable. Both terms are much better than the term "negroes." Rhobite 21:01, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for pointing out the MoS. Not 100% sure it addresses the issue though, but, alright, this is good for now. D. G. 04:09, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think using "persons" instead of "people" is very awkward. Why did you make this change? And I'm curious about how this doesn't address the issue. What is the issue? Obviously there's no perfect term here, but frankly "black people" or "blacks" are both about 100 times more preferable than "negroes."Rhobite 05:14, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Blacks and black Americans are the best terms because it is most recognized around the world among all alternatives.

African/Afro-American is confusing, especially to non-Americans because it seems to imply actual recent African lineage. Negro is perceived by many (wrongly) to be derogatory, like Oriental (also wrongly). The time when American blacks thought that the term African-American was somehow empowering has past and most people (including blacks) think it sounds nearly as antiquated as negro.

If there is a direct quote from official BJU materials that says negro, then the term should be retained in the quote. But the term should not be used in the general text of the article. -Willmcw 10:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Official BJU materials" do not even mention race any longer.--RaiderRobert

That may be, but if they did so in the past then that is still relevant to this article. Regarding interracial dating, the article now concludes that section by noting: In 2000, the policy was dropped in its entirety[1] (after some experimentation with a policy of parental consent for interracial dating) shortly after the State of South Carolina formally legalized interracial marriage. That seems to make it clear that the issue is no longer active. -Willmcw 19:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Famous Alumni

Ian Paisley is NOT an alumni - he got an honorary degree but he is NOT an alumni. Mydotnet 18:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ian Paisley. Dear God! Birds of a feather, huh? (Ok, ok, I admit, there is no way I could ever write something NPOV about BJU because I am the product of a mixed marriage, in a mixed marriage, and an evolutionary biologist. I shuddered just driving past the place) Guettarda 01:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Likely he was a graduation speaker - they are usually awarded honorary degrees. -Willmcw 18:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
actually he was a very good friend of Bob Jones, Jr., has spoken many times in the chapel services. -Mydotnet 23:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
If you can find a citation that would be an interesting fact to include. -Willmcw 23:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Accreditation & Being Black

Can we settle on the correct accreditation status of BJU? And is there a reason to keep deleting the "Being Black at BJU" link? It seemed like a solid article to me. , Cheers, -Willmcw 18:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Order of Paragraphs

A lot of people are making great changes, with no justification. Do we want to do this alphabetically, standardize all colleges, or what? -Mydotnet 04:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Copying rules out of the student handbook

Hi, I'm one of the several people who's been doing a lot of work on the Pensacola Christian College article lately. PCC has some rules for students similar to what BJU has. I was wondering... it it ok to take rules verbatim out of the student handbook and put them in the article? Or is it copyvio? It looks like you've done that in the BJU article, but I (and the other editors on the PCC article) would like to know if that's ok, because we're trying to figure out the best way to word the rules section. Please reply at Talk:Pensacola Christian College. Thanks. --Idont Havaname 19:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the school very anti-Catholic? Johhny-turbo 00:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, BJU has historically taken a very anti-Catholic stance. I've no idea what their current rhetoric is in regards to Catholicism, but there is brief mention of this near the end of the article.--Isotope23 17:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Endowment

What is the university's endowment size? —Eustress talk 01:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is, for practical purposes, none.--John Foxe (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:RS? —Eustress talk 19:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Also none.--John Foxe (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

People section

This article has experienced significant vandalism problems in the past when "notable graduates" have been mentioned on the article page. The separate "list" has seen much less vandalism, probably >5% of what used to occur on the main page. The guidelines say that sections may be "customized...depending on need and type of institution." Here there is a need for abbreviation. While there are quite a few BJU alumni who have their own WP bios, few to none meet the qualifications given in the rubric: "alumni who have won major scholarships (Rhodes, Fulbright, etc.), major awards (Nobel, Oscar, Pulitzer, etc.), served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.)."--John Foxe (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded the alumni section -- looks like plenty of notable people to me. Will get to faculty soon. You shouldn't prevent expansion out of concern for vandalism. This page has only been semi-protected once, and that was in 2010. —Eustress talk 19:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Since I have vivid memories of the vandalism, I disagree.--John Foxe (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If Jamie Langston Turner is a notable person -- nice though she may be, she is not widely known outside of BJU circles -- than the Rector of one of the largest Episcopal Churches in the nation (David R. Anderson) and the CIO of a Fortune 1000 company are notable people. Moreover, if it is notable to mention an "update" to university facilities including "Papa John's, Chik fil A and Brody's Grill," then the mention of an incident that made national headlines in 1998 when Bob Jones University banned a prominent alumnus and retired pastor from campus (Dr. Wayne Mourtizen), threatened him with arrest, and then subsequently backtracked when the University's Museum & Gallery's tax exempt status became an issue -- especially since the ban letters subsequently received by all former students specifically mention the M&G being excluded from a campus ban -- is a notable piece of information for an encyclopedia entry. I have cited credible sources. Disappearing information that Bob Jones University administration feels uncomfortable about is not the purpose of Wikipedia editing. Brodacious (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Brodacious

Amero-centric

The article, especialyl its introduction, is written with the assumption that the reader is in the USA - "all fifty states" isn't qualified as referring to the US, the 'Department of Education' isn't qualified as being the US DoE, etc. Though it's not particularily difficult to unearth the location of these places, isn't it standard policy to remove regional bias? I forget them name of it. I know spelling differences are left in the style of whoever first wrote the article, and that there's going to be a natural bias towards writing articles for the Young White American, but the article still seems very Amero-centric (if that's the word), and besides being simply off-putting makes it that much harder to read. --Dd 8630 (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental vs. Fundamentalist

There's been some recent reverting back and forth over this [3]. I'm not aware of the exact distinctions between the two terms, but in my limited experience "fundamentalist" is the more common term. Either way, it should probably be discussed here before making the change again. (As a side note, I can't think of a Wikipedia policy saying that we need to stay as closely as possible to the original language when paraphrasing, or that we can't use synonyms to keep the language more in line with the rest of the article.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I did revert it once, basically for the reason you stated: I'm simply unfamiliar with "fundamental" as opposed to "fundamentalist". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Eating fiber is fundamental for a good diet. Believing God's word literally, for example, and building a church and a school on that basis is fundamentalist. You had it right in your revert: they are very different words and "fundamentalist" is the proper term. There are no "fundamental churches". (Look it up in the dictionary.) Drmies (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Until 1996, there was a denomination called Independent Fundamental Churches of America (now IFCA International), and many fundamentalist Baptists (and their bitter opponents) often call their churches "Independent Fundamental Baptist" (IFB).--John Foxe (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

The issue is not for us to try to explain the difference between a "fundamentalist church" or a "fundamental church." There may or may not be a difference or a nuance, but the issue is that there is indeed a Wikipedia policy about quotation (please see Wikipedia:QUOTE) and Wikipedia does view paraphrasing like a quote when it is sourced inline. The specific guideline is, "If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked." Additionally, "fundamental Baptist church" receives 388,000 results on Google (a majority of BJU constituents appear to be Baptist or Baptistic), whereas "fundamentalist Baptist church" gets only 14,500 results. Obviously there is a difference out there, so that would be reason enough. But again, the issue is not a Google search but that Wikipedia editors must abide by the objective guideline, not one's stylistic opinion. If you don't like the grammar of it then put the two instances in quotation marks to avoid criticism of seemingly bad grammar. But please revert. If someone insists on misquoting the source, at least he would need to use brackets in both instances of the quote (i.e., "[fundamentalist]" instead of "fundamentalist") to "clearly mark" the alteration. But that would be unnecessarily awkward.--Llama36 (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If editors can't tell the difference between one and the other, then someone should explain it. If it concerns a quote, then obviously the source should be followed, but it should also be clear that it's a source that's being quoted or paraphrased. Honestly, I'm baffled at this entire conversation. Fundamentalist means something very specifically and it's not a term to be thrown around lightly, but it has little to do with the word fundamental. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I can fix that simply.--John Foxe (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent solution that also cuts down on redundancy. Thanks.--Llama36 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Curiously, the reference to church planting in Turner's book uses the term "Fundamentalist churches."--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I regret to have missed that and to have referred to "two instances" of misquote. Therefore the second quote could be reverted but not the first. I still think it is improved as is now, but to be fair I have removed the "solved" bar. --Llama36 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I think it reads better now too.--John Foxe (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What Wikipedia Is Not ... Any Input Here?

Looking over this article, I wonder whether or not it meets the criteria of WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not. For example, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." For example, some of the controversies and rules of conduct seem strange for an encyclopedia. Many other schools have guidelines and rules and controversies. Some of them might be necessary, but to me much of the stuff in here doesn't seem consistent with notability; Why would an editor choose some rules to highlight and not others? Who decides what is notable? Why are those specific ones chosen? Anyone have any thoughts on this?--Llama36 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, most people only know of Bob Jones University because of its former policies on interracial dating. Before I read this article the three things I knew about BJU is: 1. it didn't allow interracial dating until very recently, 2. it was unaccredited (apparently a choice of the three Bob Joneses that Stephen Jones has reversed) and 3. it promotes creationism (of course most evangelical colleges have a very strong anti-science bent, but Liberty and BJU are the only ones I remember hearing named specifically). Reading this article I had the opposite reaction (see the section below), in that it came across as apologizing for the unaccredited policy with wording that I suspect of giving undue weight to claims in one book that the policy was irrelevant. —Quintucket (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism needs to be more prominent

Some of the criticism (or a summary of it) should be included in the opening paragraphs. It's important and what best describes this institution. Seeing how much of the criticism has now been corrected this would mean that the opening paragraph would remain neutral (i.e. They didn't permit interracial dating until recently)--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 12:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good observation. Care to take a stab at it? —Eustress talk 02:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that the criticism is unduly downplayed. The college is pretty much solely known for its fringe policies and long history of non-accreditation, however the article as written downplays the former and makes excuses for the latter. However I'm worried that as a staunch secularist, I couldn't edit the article fairly, and would be inclined to go too far in the other direction.
If I have time this January I might like to see if I can't get the book that's cited in claims that the non-accreditation didn't matter for most of its history, and if as I suspect it's either a misrepresentation of the source or the source is one long apologia for BJU, remove those sentences. However the rest of the criticism seems like something I'd have a hard time editing fairly, because it would require adding information that's been lacking, not merely removing one-sided information from a fringe source or odd interpretation of a source. —Quintucket (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

For profit status

The citation that BJU is a for-profit school is based on the organization of the entity as one without tax exempt status, which is what people judge colleges' status by on some level, but it is inaccurate. I am almost certain they are organized as a non-profit corporation and just don't have tax exempt status, but there is ambiguity among reliable sources about that, so I think that the article shouldn't claim the university to be for-profit or not, and should clarify this in the text. BranSul (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur that a plethora of websites out there claim BJU is one way or another without any real grounding. However, the NCES would seem authoritative on the matter. Plus, the article itself also explains that, "Although BJU never reapplied for federal tax-exempt status [after it was revoked via decision of Bob Jones University v. United States (1983)] and continues to pay federal taxes, a number of its ancillaries, including Bob Jones Academy and the BJU Museum & Gallery, are tax-exempt entities." —Eustress talk 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I just checked the SC Secretary of State for certainty. At http://www.sos.sc.gov/index.asp?n=18&p=4&s=18&corporateid=19735 you can see that BJU is in fact organized as a non-profit. Its tax exempt status is a separate matter. BranSul (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right. The SOS website also properly categorizes other private non-profits (e.g., Wofford) and for-profits (e.g., Forrest College). Cheers. —Eustress talk 00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I sort of think the NCES does that to be a bit slick with making it clear that tax exempt status isn't there? Or they don't see it as a different matter. But I think it's common knowledge among legal that some non-profits are not tax exempt. From the perspective of every state's law (which is the law which forms corps) nonprofit means nobody is getting any dividends. BJU probably doesn't pay state income taxes. BranSul (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Since it hasn't been mentioned and I think it should be included in the article is Bob Jones University v. United States which covers the controversy and legal actions for BJU's Non-Profit status. YborCityJohn (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
BJU v. US is summarized and linked under the section about race. John Foxe (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Handling of sexual assault cases

Apparently, the administration of Bob Jones University referred to victims of sexual assault as "liars" and "sinners", and coerced them not to report the assaults because doing so would "damage Jesus Christ". The university hired a fundamentalist Christian consulting firm to audit its practices regarding sexual assault, but then fired the consulting firm without explanation just before its report was due to be completed. (New York Times, Washington Post. Is this notable? Should it be mentioned in the article? MastCell Talk 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very notable and should be worked into the controversies section. 98.117.83.122 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

As can be seen all over this talk page, the consensus is that the article whitewashes the schools long history of straight up racist policies. There is no doubt that pushing the information into a "controversies" section is an attempt to cover up this racism. Further attempts to use WP:Wikilawyering in an attempt to make this school look better on Wikipedia will be seen as exactly that. Abductive (reasoning) 19:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There's been no attempt to cover up anything. The section on racial policies is c. 5000 words, while the description of the campus, plus discussion of academics (and accreditation) is only c. 8,600. Additional discussion of BJU and race is UNDUE.--John Foxe (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure. Anyway, you are outnumbered on this talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 01:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been suggested in the past that the article structure be more chronological; but as I said then, and repeat now, the problems of doing that, in my opinion, outweigh the benefits. Most folks come to this page with something in mind, and I think a section of "controversies" fits the bill for most. Certainly, it's impossible simply to drop in a single non-contextualized sentence saying, in effect, "These guys are racist jerks" and expect that to be accepted by the community as NPOV.--John Foxe (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
They were racists and didn't allow interracial dating until <you tell me>. Abductive (reasoning) 21:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
All the details are right there in the article. Take a look.--John Foxe (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

History and criticism

On Wikipedia we are encouraged to "avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism" (see WP:CRIT), and this article got to the imbalanced point where the Criticism section had 18k characters compared to only 1k in the History section. The criticism is a part of the university's history and should be presented in an NPOV light. Likewise, some of the detail is best presented in a dedicated History (see WP:SS). I've made an attempt at addressing these issues by creating History of Bob Jones University, which preserves a lot of the outstanding research that's been done previously while trying to restore balance to this article. —Eustress 20:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My argument has always been "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." What I find most annoying about the rewrite is that unrelated things are thrown together because they happened at about the same time. Some "paragraphs" are composed of completely unrelated ideas.--John Foxe (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A "B" on the quality scale typically (depends on each WikiProject) means there are still issues of content and style to be addressed. The chronological order of the History helps preserve NPOV and is consistent with the WP:UNI exemplars, or FAs. —Eustress 00:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how you can reconcile emphasis on chronology in this article with creating a whole new article called History of Bob Jones University that ignores chronology.
Let's take some time and point up chronological change where it's applicable. Otherwise it will appear that we are trying to shunt off important material that folks will be looking for here.--John Foxe (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the material has now been organized with a considered balance between chronology and topicality. Emphasis on straight chronology can astray in a dozen ways, not even counting making readability more difficult.--John Foxe (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The precedent established by WP:UNI favors chronological ordering and spinning off details into a dedicated history article, and the consensus here supports this viewpoint:
  1. User:Abductive called for chronological order (see diff)
  2. User:Llama36 and User:Quintucket called to restore balance to the article per WP:UNDUE (see diff)
You're failing to get the point and I'm worried that you're exhibiting ownership tendencies again. —Eustress 20:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I support User:Eustress. User:John Foxe should be concerned, lest it appears that he is attempting to "bury the lead" on the embarrassing racism exhibited by the institution. Abductive (reasoning) 20:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that User:Eustress has eliminated a number of improvements to the article out-of-hand. I'm willing to go with his basic outline, but in his haste he has reintroduced errors of fact.--John Foxe (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I've now tweaked the section and eliminated the errors.--John Foxe (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You are acting against consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was invited to restore balance to this discussion (see above). While I think this new entry is valuable, well cited and well written by User:Eustress (kudos!), I think that the title of the article is erroneous and must be changed. This article deals with issues and controversies, not history in the plain Wikipedia sense of the term. Of course I recognize that the issues are historical, as is anything in the past, but standard Wikipedia users seeing this title would not be looking predominantly for Religious Issues, Race Relations, and Political Involvement (the only three sections currently). This is not my subjective opinion. I just search within Wikipedia for "History University" and many articles appear on the History of many academic institutions and just the first 5 I searched all had a chronological history (things like Beginnings, foundations, formal establishment, further growth, the 19th century, establishment of new colleges and schools, succession of presidents and deans, etc.). Therefore I believe this page must be retitled to something like "History of Bob Jones University Controversies". Alternatively, and perhaps better, you could add standard BJU history to this article based on precedents I just mentioned, but even then, to make sense the new material should be equal or greater in content than the current material on controversies, and place the current material as subpoints under a section called "History of Controversies". In general, the history of controversy, even when well documented, is fraught with problems of subjectivity and debate and viewpoints. But the year of founding, registration, student enrollment, addition of majors and schools, names of presidents and deans, etc., is more encyclopedic, and of course that is what Wikipedia is designed for. Bob Jones University is at the center of much controversy, but this article title is not the appropriate place in my opinion.--Llama36 (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest moving (or duplicating) these remarks at History of Bob Jones University, which at this moment lacks a talk page as well as a chronology.--John Foxe (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Llama36 (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

COI investigation

FYI, there is a COI investigation pertaining to this article at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bob_Jones_University. —Eustress 23:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As an update, an ANI inquiry has been launched subsequent to the COI investigation. —Eustress 21:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead text

A few editors including myself have sought to remove the following text from the lead on grounds of POV/boosterism.

Text/Cite

Though the conservative religious, cultural, and political stances taken by the university have often generated controversy, they have also resulted in greater institutional influence than might have been anticipated from a college of its size.[1]

  1. ^ Turner, Daniel. Standing Without Apology: The History of Bob Jones University. pp. vii.;Dalhouse, Mark Taylor (1996). An Island in the Lake of Fire: Bob Jones University, Fundamentalism & the Separatist Movement. University of Georgia Press. pp. 1–2, 5–6, 163.: "The flourishing status of an institution committed to a militant theological and cultural conservatism marks Bob Jones University as worthy of note for observers of American religion."

Based on the sources recently provided, I don't think they substantiate any claim about the uni's religion/culture/politics resulting in unduly great influence. I think all we're safe to say is something like "The university is known for its conservative religious, cultural, and political stances." —Eustress 23:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I've made that change.--John Foxe (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

GRACE report response

The quotations cited are under "Response to Victims" and in the Q&A under "The report recommended removal/discontinued use of sermons or materials that may contain information abuse/assault victims find insensitive. What is the status?" I'll be happy to add those sub-citation to the note.--John Foxe (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The content you added was:

In a March 2015 response, University president Steve Pettit said that a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's office had uncovered no "instances where the University failed to comply with its reporting obligations" and that although it would review all sermons and materials cited in the G.R.A.C.E. report, the University endorsed the writings of Jim Berg as "faithful to Scripture" and would continue to use them in BJU courses and distribute them through BJU Press.[1]

References

  1. ^ "President Pettit Responds to GRACE Recommendations."
The content you added was not accurate in that the president did not say that that a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's office had uncovered no "instances where the University failed to comply with its reporting obligations". The web page says that, not the president. I am not sure I am confortable with the bits you chose to introduce out of the president's remarks and the school's webpage - they acknowledged doing some wrong and your selections make them seem entirely in denial and defensive. I don't have time to think about this more right now but will come back to it later. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The president put his authority behind the whole response, information also provided in the Q&A: "Through prayerful consideration along with advice and counsel of the advisory group and significant input from the University’s leadership team, the president ultimately is responsible for the final decisions." But if you'd like to say "the university said" rather than the university president said, that's fine too.--John Foxe (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
it was sloppy scholarship; please don't defend it - everybody makes mistakes. still thinking about the bits you chose to highlight. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Watching students get a handle on a subject is part of what makes education exciting. E. H. Carr wrote that every historian worth his salt begins with a bee in his bonnet, an invigorating impulse to prove or disprove something. But students who reach scholarly maturity often come out a different door than they went in.--John Foxe (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
yep, and everybody is human :) more to come on the substance, they said a lot and i have read a few times and am letting it sink in. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for it. Just sorry I can't give you a quiz.--John Foxe (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You've literally made several hundred edits elsewhere in the last few days. The ball's now in your court here.--John Foxe (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
you went and added it back. you chose the most defensive and stupid parts of the announcement. the key thing is that they acknowledged hurting people and apologized for it. do you really want to show BJU as being legalistic, unrepentant assholes hiding behind lawyers? do you have no pastoral bone in your body? completely tone-deaf. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ironic that you want to hide information that in your eyes makes BJU look worse. At Wikipedia we don't hide "defensive and stupid parts" of things.--John Foxe (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not hiding anything. I am giving the most important part of the information - what the president himself said. Why you think covering BJU's ass on a legal basis is important, is beyond me. Please explain. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly foggy about the matter in dispute, which provides a good illustration of why many Wikipedia articles are improved by having a tutelary genius with a putative COI. The paragraph at issue begins with a discussion of Jim Berg and nouthetic counseling, the core of the disagreement. So the University replies, "We're deeply sorry. But nothing we did was illegal, and we continue to endorse the biblical counseling philosophy you hate." I think if I had edited the article the way you did, I would have been jumped on—probably even by you.--John Foxe (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
let's stop talking about each other shall we? Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) (add missing word Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC))
Other what? Ah, stuff like "sloppy scholarship," "no pastoral bone in your body? completely tone-deaf." Not to worry; I'm pretty even-keeled.----John Foxe (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)John Foxe (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
yes, and like "You're clearly foggy about the matter in dispute" and your insulting offer to give me a quiz, etc etc - all the personalization. do you want to stop talking about each other, or not? It would be more productive if we focused on content, per TPG. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Fine. I'd be happy to have your response to the following: The paragraph at issue begins with a discussion of Jim Berg and nouthetic counseling, the core of the disagreement. So the University replies, "We're deeply sorry. But nothing we did was illegal, and we continue to endorse Jim Berg's biblical counseling philosophy."--John Foxe (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine seeing what I just wrote condensed. I just wanted to focus the content on the self-identified heart of the matter... per the discussion above. That said, religion and sexual abuse has been a big deal for a decade or two. Hardly recentism in that regard. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Adjwilley (talk) that two paragraphs seems excessive, and I still believe Jytdog misunderstands the issue. But as he said above, his version makes BJU look better. I am content to let it stand. I have tried to reduce some of the wordiness though.--John Foxe (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
There's at least a bit more to this story to come. The Greenville solicitor's office has been investigating whether any South Carolina laws were broken. If the solicitor brings charges, or if he decides there is insufficient evidence to bring charges, that information should be included as well.--John Foxe (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
if charges are brought, sure. if not, i would say not noteworthy enough to include.Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't have to worry about it just yet, but in its response, the University said its counselors broke no laws. If the solicitor's actively looking and can't find anything that's certainly more important than other information provided in that history section, like changing logos. For sure such information should at least go in a footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Bob Jones University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bob Jones University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Bob Jones University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 13:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve Taylor "We Don't Need No Color Code"

Would it be appropriate to include Steve Taylor track "We Don't Need No Color Code" from Meltdown (Steve Taylor album), as an example of protests against their Inter-racial dating ban?

He's discussed it in various places - see here for examples.

It was certainly important for Taylor but, to my knowledge, had no discernible effect on the racial policies of BJU. John Foxe (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

BIG ERRORS in Accreditation section

some southern accreditation group is cited as 2017 but the linked citation claims 2011. but both are superseded by the Wiki page of the so-called accreditation group. "Established 1895, Dissolved 2006 i don't care if 2011 or 2017 the organization still didn't exist. --Qazwiz (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what organization dissolved in 2006, but it wasn't the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, http://www.sacscoc.org/, which is one of the six regional accrediting associations in the United States and is very much alive. The article correctly says, "In December 2011, BJU announced its intention to apply for regional accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACSCOC), and it received that accreditation in 2017." I've added a 2017 citation to that sentence, though a citation for the information is given earlier in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Jones_University/Archive_1&oldid=1275491049"