Talk:Lipscomb University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennessee
Portal
Lipscomb University is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

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

[edit] Rules

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

[edit] Treasure?

This is bogus. The section makes the claim, "Other expansions to campus have been delayed until the treasure can be found." Yet Friday, 20 April 2007 is the ground breaking ceremony for the new music department building. I have heard passing rumors about the tunnels, though. Should any of this be kept?

JCoughey 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)JCoughey

there are caves, but tunnels i am unsure of, and the Search for any treasure is bogus.


[edit] Begining Article Cleanup

I would like to hear from other users on how to proceed on cleanup of this article.

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

Thanks for input into any of these or other areas of the article. — PikePlace (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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