Talk:Fordham University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Marymount Campus

Someone suggested that the "marymount campus" page be merged into Fordham's main page. I second that and also suggest that a whole new page be created on the history of the soon to be gone Marymount College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscobar (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Marymount Colleges

I am creating a new wiki entry which describes the Marymount colleges. I am also creating a disambiguation page for Marymount College so that people searching for Marymount College of Tarrytown will not simply find the page for Marymount College of Palos Verdes--especially since it was founded four decades AFTER this Marymount. Until a page with Marymount College of Tarrytown's history is up, though, I think the name of this page should be changed to Marymount College. or Marymount College of Fordham University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatyoudreamof (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I'd go further by adding a brief description for each of Fordham's three campuses. Other major universities with multiple campuses (George Washington for example) have this feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.21 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic 10 semis March 10, 2006

For those in the NYC cable TV audience, the game starts at 8:30PM (unless it is delayed because earlier game goes long) and will be shown on MSG network on cable immediatel;y following the MapleLeafs game. Go Rams! John wesley 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Apologies for the apology I put at the end of the article (normally I don't do such a thing), but this really is pathetic. I'm adding the one sentence article to put this on my contributions so I can return and flesh it out. The reason I can't flesh it out is that I can't bring up the Fordham web site tonight...for some reason. I'll fix it tomorrow, but anyone who can should fix it in the meantime. Sorry for posting this sub-sub-stub! Jwrosenzweig 00:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NB: For anyone who is fixing grammatical errors, the external link "the paper" is supposed to be all in lower case. (not The Paper) 68.198.210.163 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Movies

I'm pretty sure Beautiful Mind was filmed at Princeton. Can anyone find sources to support the fact that these movie were filmed at Fordham? --24.63.125.78 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

^^^ Yes part of it was at least. I know, for sure, that the scene with Russell Crowe in the Pentagon breaking Soviet code was indeed filmed in the basement of Keating Hall. Other parts were also filmed on campus, but I'm not exactly sure which ones.

A-10 tourney

Did we win? John wesley 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Anh "Joseph" Cao, the first Vietnamese-American elected to congress, received a MA in Philosophical Resources (the philosophy degree for Jesuit scholastics) from Fordham. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/07louisiana.html?adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1228676814-7pWL8/oPBMbMPSXBPd41qQ

Lack of references

I haven't added a {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag or sprinkled a bunch of {{fact}} tags in the article but the references aren't well cited in this article at all. The "Further Reading" and "External Links" sections are good but they are no replacement for references. --ElKevbo 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Crimson/Magenta

The Crimson/Magenta color part needs sources. I am going to add citation needed tags. Awiseman 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hope the current ones are satisfactory. Shoreranger

Yes indeed, thanks. I think I am going to clean it up a little though. Awiseman 14:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Alumni section getting out of hand

There are now an hundreds of notable alumni listed, many of whom I don't think are notable at all. User:Theblueline has been adding tons of alumni, a lot of which I don't consider notable, and some with incorrect information, like the CEO of the Postal Service, which is a position that doesn't exist. I think he or she just Googled "Fordham" and added whoever came back. There are a lot of judges on circuit courts, the chairman of a park authority, heads of random companies, etc. Here are the people I think should be deleted, what do you all think? Most don't have their own articles.

Business:

   * Raul Alarcon, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO of Spanish Broadcasting System
   * Robert M. Calderoni, Chairman and CEO of Ariba
   * Michael J. Dolan, Executive Vice President and CFO of Viacom
   * John D. Finnegan, Chairman, President and CEO of Chubb Corporation (Fordham Law alumnus)
   * Mario J. Gabelli, Founder, Chairman, CEO and Chief Investment Officer of GAMCO Investors
   * Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr., Chairman of El Paso Corporation
   * William R. Meagher, former senior partner with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
   * Angelo R. Mozilo, Co-Founder, Chairman and CEO of Countrywide Financial Corporation
   * Finbarr J. O'Neill, President and CEO of Reynolds & Reynolds (Fordham Law alumnus)
   * Frank J. Petrilli, President and CEO of Nexxar Group
   * Joseph Quinlan, Chief Market Strategist of Banc of America Capital Management (master's degree from Fordham)
   * Mary Lou Quinlan, Founder and CEO of Just Ask a Woman (master's degree from Fordham)
   * J. Brendan Ryan, Chairman of Foote, Cone & Belding Worldwide
   * David J. Shea, President and COO of Bowne & Co.
   * William D. Walsh, Founder & Chairman of Sequoia Associates

Education:

   * Paul Reiss, President Emeritus of Saint Michael's College (master's degree from Fordham)

Government:

   * Claire Eagan, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Fordham Law alumna)
   * James F. Gill, Chairman of the Battery Park City Authority (Fordham Law alumnus)
   * Joseph M. McLaughlin, Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1990-Present)
   * John D. Feerick, former Chairman of the New York State Commission on Government Integrity
   * William Hughes Mulligan, Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1971-1981)

Journalism

   * Caterina Bandini, news anchor for WHDH/Channel 7, Boston
   * Susan L. Taylor, Editorial Director of Essence magazine

Radio and television

   * John Andariese, radio announcer for the New York Knicks
   * Spero Dedes, radio announcer for the Los Angeles Lakers
   * John Giannone, co-anchor of MSG SportsDesk on MSG Network
   * Ed Randall, host of Talking Baseball on WFAN
   * Lou Rufino, engineer, Imus in the Morning program
   * Charlie Slowes, radio announcer for the Washington Nationals
   * Gary Stanley, sports reporter for WCBS Newsradio 88
   * Steve Ryan, Commissioner of the Major Indoor Soccer League

-- Awiseman 23:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone that doesn't have an article already in wikipedia should be removed. And putting outside links to names does NOT count. Maybe also as a compromise, we can move the list to a seperate article like they do for other college articles?24.193.21.143 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the alumni section is getting out of hand, and I think the seperate article would work well. On a side note, most large schools, such as Syracuse University, include alumni that don't have wikipedia entries.Anskykids

This message is intended for the person with the IP address 24.193.21.143. First off, you’ve deleted alumni who have Wikipedia articles (Paul Reiss, Chris Carrino, Spero Dedes, Steve Bellan, Peter Carlesimo, P.J. Carlesimo, Pete Harnisch, Harry Jacunski and John Wolyniec). Second -- Bank of America, The Dow Chemical Co., Viacom, Countrywide Financial Corp., El Paso Corp., Chubb Corp., Consolidated Edison, Tribune Co. and Foot Locker are all Fortune 500 companies. You’ve deleted the co-founder of one of those companies (Angelo Mozilo) and the Chairmen, Presidents, CEOs, COOs and CFOs of the rest. Third -- What do you need to accomplish to be "notable"? Being the CEO of Burberry isn’t good enough (Rose Marie Bravo)? Having started the "For Dummies" series of how-to books isn’t notable (John Kilcullen)? Having served as a college president isn’t worthy enough (Rev. Gerard Reedy, S.J. and Paul Reiss)? Having served as a U.S. ambassador isn’t notable (Adrian Basora)? Four-star general and former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army isn’t worthy enough (John Keane)? Winning a Peabody Award and two Emmy Awards isn’t enough (Jack Ford)? Being Chairman Emeritus of ESPN and winning two Emmy Awards and two Tony Awards isn’t good enough (Herbert Granath)? Having been the first Latin American to play in baseball's major leagues isn’t notable (Steve Bellan)? Any college in America would be honored to include the alumni you’ve deleted on their list of notable alumni. Boston College has a list of over 200 notable alumni. Our list, before your deletions, had only 130 alumni.

Anonymous - don't get so defensive. Check the article, I haven't deleted any of the people on my list, I am asking for other people's thoughts on the matter. And none of the people you mention (Rose Marie Bravo, Kilcullen, Basora, Bellan) etc etc were on my list of people I think should be removed. The only one I have on there is Paul Reiss, the president of St. Michael's College. It's a small school, and to me, thus not very notable. I'm sure lots of colleges have presidents of smaller colleges as alumni. The rest of people you mentioned, however, I didn't even put on my list. I'm sure they are fine alumni, but the users above makes a good argument that anybody without a Wikipedia article should be removed from the list. I agree with the above users - we keep the ones with Wikipedia articles, and make a separate page - "Alumni of Fordham University" or something similiar, with everybody on the list and link to it. Thoughts? -- Awiseman 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Awiseman, my message wasn't directed at you; it was intended for the person with the IP address 24.193.21.143 who took it upon himself/herself to delete 53 alumni on 5/14/06. I’ve restored all of them except for Peter Vallone, Jr. (not notable), Lou Rufino (not notable) and Gary Sinise (Was his entry someone’s idea of a joke? I searched the Web to find a connection between Sinise and Fordham and I couldn’t find anything.). I’d like the person who erased the 53 alumni explain why two former college presidents, an historical figure (Steve Bellan), and several high-ranking officers of Fortune 500 companies were deleted. In fact, he/she removed 23 alumni from the Business category, leaving only 5 alumni in that classification. Why bother even having a Business category if you’re not going to list anyone from the business world? Syracuse, Northwestern, Georgetown and other universities have over 200 notable alumni in their Wikipedia articles. Why does Fordham’s modest 127 alumni bother some people? I vote to keep the notable alumni list as is. 68.79.154.94 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the list of alumni is getting out of hand. I further agree that a separate article would be a good way to help maintain this list without making the main Fordham article too unwieldy. I further submit that just because some other articles have long(er) lists doesn't mean it's good practice. I would hope the contributors to this article would be striving to make it *better* than those other articles. I have no opinion regarding the removal of persons without Wikipedia articles except to state that the presence or lack of a Wikipedia article is a very poor yard stick for measuring notoriety. --ElKevbo 17:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that a separate article is warranted as that would allow the list to be as big as it needs to be without having a negative impact on the main article. Also I believe that it is Wikipedia policy for sections that grow big enough to get their own pages with links from the main article.Chriscobar 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How could you delete Mario Gabelli? He is one of the most prominent figures in the financial world today. He regularly appears as a commentator on financial news shows, and writes frequently for the Wall Street Journal. William R. Meagher? Being a co-founder of one of the largest, most successful and most prestigious law firms in the world isn't good enough? Jim Gill? The guy is probably the most influential New Yorker since Robert Moses (just more modest and quiet). And the Battery Park City Authority is not a "park authority." It is far more important than that. I know there are a lot of circuit judges, but Judges Mulligan and McLaughlin are considered genuine giants in the legal world. If we wanted to flood this article with federal judges with a Fordham degree, we could do that. Mulligan and McLaughlin were selected because of their influence and notoriety in the legal world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.80.205.98 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 May 2006. with additional edits by 69.116.151.155 on 18:47, 15 May 2006

I agree with the above user. I've seen "Super Mario" Gabelli on CNBC a multitude of times. He's important enough to be interviewed on the financial cable channels but apparently not worthy enough to be listed as a "notable" alumnus. Mary Lou Quinlan is another alumna that's been marked for deletion and yet she appears on the ABC TV show American Inventor every week. I saw Susan Taylor, another alumna, being honored with the 2006 NAACP President's Award on TV a couple of months ago and yet she too has been nominated for deletion. Re: Jim Gill, I nearly fell off my chair when one person referred to him as the chairman of "a park authority". Has this person ever heard of Battery Park City? The same person claims there’s no such position as the CEO of the Postal Service. Well, I looked it up and – surprise – he’s wrong! Getting back to Gabelli, I guess the company he founded, GAMCO Investors, which manages billions of dollars in investments, is just a "random company" to some people.[1] Are 18 year-old college students running Wikipedia’s Fordham article? 68.79.154.94 00:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous - don't be snarky, I am doing this in good faith. I posted this list so it could be discusssed, rather than just deleting it. According to the Wikipedia article, it says Battery Part City Authority is a planning authority for an area of Manhattan. Still not sure that means that person is notable, however, but again, it's up for discussion. As for the others, like Gabelli, Quinlan, and such, if they are as notable as you say, please create a page for them or change the citation for them in the list - "Mario Gabelli, MSNBC commentator and founder of GAMCO Investors" sounds to me like he's a lot more notable. There are lots of companies that manage billions of dollars in investments - are their founders all notable? I don't know. And "Postmaster General" is the CEO, it's the same thing. "CEO of the Postal Service" seems to be used in business when people might not recognize "Postmaster General" as an important CEO-level title. To me, it would be like saying Donald Rumsfeld is secretary and CEO of the Defense Department. Awiseman 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

According to John E. Potter's "full biography" on the USPS website, "prior to becoming Postmaster General, he had been Chief Operating Officer." I take that statement to mean that "Postmaster General" and "CEO" are two separate positions.[2] Regarding Gabelli, if he’s not "notable" then hardly any the businessmen/women listed as Notable Alumni should be on that list. (Ever hear of the Gabelli mutual funds? I’m invested in two of them: Gabelli Asset and Gabelli Growth.) In fact, only two of the businesmen/women listed have Wikipedia articles written on them (Kathleen Brown and Donald Trump). We might as well delete the entire Business section making Fordham the only national university without "notable" businessmen/women listed in its Wikipedia article. Now explain to this 50 year-old what is the meaning "snarky"? 68.79.154.94 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous - No, I've never heard of Gabelli mutual funds. But if he's on TV and is supposedly a famous businessman, then I am fine with him being included. Snarky means overly critical and sarcastic. --Awiseman 19:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the "notable alumni" entries for other schools referenced in this discussion. I won't quibble about who is listed as "notable" in those entries but, for example, if we were to include state Supreme Justices with a Fordham degree, this list is going to multiply. Of significance, I did notice some of these school entries contained an additional section, "Notable Faculty." Certainly Fordham has had more than its fair share of noted faculty (Quentin Lauer, Norris Clarke, Avery Dulles, William Hogan, etc). I think we should break off this list into a separate article and then start compiling a "Notable Faculty" Section. contribs)

I agree with both of the last poster's suggestions: seperate entry for alumni and start a list of noted faculty Shoreranger 00:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I happened to catch a bit of Oprah Winfrey’s "Legends Ball" on TV last night and saw that Fordham alumna Susan L. Taylor (Editorial Director, Essence magazine) was one of the legends being honored at the event. The list of honorees was quite impressive (Maya Angelou, Halle Berry, Mariah Carey, Diana Ross, Cicely Tyson, etc.). For those unfamiliar with Oprah's Legends Ball, it's an event to honor African-American women who have paved the way for others. I respectfully request that Taylor’s name be removed from the "should be deleted" list posted above.[3] Theblueline 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree with removal of any of the alumni listed for deletion, with one exception that I see no point in singling out at the moment. Gabelli, for example, is one of the best known people in finance. I would suggest that the absence of separate articles should be rectified, rather than removal from the list.--Mantanmoreland 13:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The creation of this list makes me wonder if we should heed any suggestions presented by its author. He/she suggest deleting three billionaires and some well known members of the broadcast community. What makes wikipedia unique is that allows experts unique to particular fields to add content. Clearly this author is not much of an expert in any of the highlighted areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.119.48 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sign your posts

This is a friendly reminder to please sign your posts. Thanks! --ElKevbo 23:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Source for Anglican connection to town of Fordham name, please?

Where is this from?: "...a reference to Rev. John Fordham, an Anglican priest." Shoreranger 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the writer, but Gannon makes reference to it in his book. The school was named for the neighborhood, which was allegedly named for the minister.Amherst5282 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not clear at all from the text. Could the author clean that up? Shoreranger

Prestige

I have removed the word "prestigious" from the intro sentence per the Wikipedia guideline recommending we avoid academic boosterism. As recommended in the NPOV policy, let the facts speak for themselves. The article does a very good job of establishing the prominence and quality of the institution without using ambigious and subjective words like "prestigious." --ElKevbo 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see. For the sake of consistency and credibility, editors should not often change long-standing text but this specific rule governs here. As they say, the specific rule governs over the general policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.205.98 (talk • contribs)

Tagged alumni list

I added the cleanup-list template the alumni list, as I feel that it includes many alums who aren't notable (many of whom I've listed below). It seems like academic boosterism, trying to list everybody who has done anything. Here's my updated list of people I think should be deleted. As always, the list is up for discussion. I'm not from New York, so maybe some of the people listed are famous in New York.

Business:

• Raul Alarcon, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO of Spanish Broadcasting System
• Robert M. Calderoni, Chairman and CEO of Ariba
• John D. Finnegan, Chairman, President and CEO of Chubb Corporation (Fordham Law alumnus)
• Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr., Chairman of El Paso Corporation
• Angelo R. Mozilo, Co-Founder, Chairman and CEO of Countrywide Financial Corporation
• Finbarr J. O'Neill, President and CEO of Reynolds & Reynolds (Fordham Law alumnus)
• Frank J. Petrilli, President and CEO of Nexxar Group
• Joseph Quinlan, Chief Market Strategist of Banc of America Capital Management (master's degree from Fordham)
• Mary Lou Quinlan, Founder and CEO of Just Ask a Woman (master's degree from Fordham)
• David J. Shea, President and COO of Bowne & Co.
• William D. Walsh, Founder & Chairman of Sequoia Associates

Government:

• Claire Eagan, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Fordham Law alumna)
• James F. Gill, Chairman of the Battery Park City Authority (Fordham Law alumnus)
• Joseph M. McLaughlin, Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1990-Present)
• John D. Feerick, former Chairman of the New York State Commission on Government Integrity
• William Hughes Mulligan, Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1971-1981)

Media and Communications

• Caterina Bandini, news anchor for WHDH/Channel 7, Boston
• John Giannone, co-anchor of MSG Network's MSG SportsDesk
• Sal Marchiano, two-time Emmy Award-winning sports anchor for New York City's WB affiliate, WPIX-TV
• John Andariese, radio announcer for the New York Knicks
• Spero Dedes, radio announcer for the Los Angeles Lakers
• John Giannone, co-anchor of MSG SportsDesk on MSG Network
• Ed Randall, host of Talking Baseball on WFAN
• Charlie Slowes, radio announcer for the Washington Nationals
• Gary Stanley, sports reporter for WCBS Newsradio 88

Sports

• Steve Ryan, Commissioner of the Major Indoor Soccer League

--Awiseman 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your tag as it is apparent that the vast majority of contributors not only disagree with you but feel that you are indiscriminately proposing removing some very accomplished alumni. You raised this same point just two months ago and an extended discussion ensued, with all other contributors taking exception to your point. I don't understand why you would even raise this point again. The last debate on this subject settled it. 69.116.151.155, July 8, 2006

I agree. A list is not bad because it is long. A list is bad because if some of its components do not belong on it.--Mantanmoreland 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If the anonymous commenter would notice, I have removed the ones people took exception to. Those that remain, I think, are not notable. --Awiseman 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Those with a spare moment and a knowledge of the subject might want to take a look at Martin Luther, to ascertain if it fairly deals with this man as relates to the Roman Catholic church, and weigh in if it does not.--Mantanmoreland 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Keating Hall photo

Needs a date. The scene certainly does nto look that way now, and it is misleading not to acknoledge it in the caption with a date.--Shoreranger 19:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone added "circa 1937" in the caption, but aren't there copyright laws protecting photos published in 1923 and afterwards? Anyone know for sure? And why was Chriscobar's cool pic of the Administration Building replaced with this old photo of Keating? There's already a nice shot of Keating in the article? Are two photos of the same building really necessary? Theblueline 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate alumni article

One way of dealing with the unwieldy nature of the alumni list is to simply create an article or articles listing notable Fordham alumni. Note the approach taken for Harvard [4]. Has anything like this been contemplated?--Mantanmoreland 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned it before, I think it's a good idea. Leave a few of the most famous alums on here, but put the whole list there. --Awiseman 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, well unless somebody objects, maybe it should be done then? It would surely rectify the whole issue and there could be a link right there in the article. Also, and I must confessed I am confused by some of the back-and-forth, I would suggest not omitting any names from the alumni list. They seem like notable people to be, all of them.--Mantanmoreland 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, go for it! I was most concerned about the list getting bloated and thus making this page enormous. If there's a new page for alums, then I have no problem with them all being on the new page. --Awiseman 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well, before I do it, how's about the title. "List of Fordham University Alumni"? Then I'll just cut and past the whole list.--Mantanmoreland 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes on the new page; No on the title. I suggest "Notable Fordham University Alumni". As first suggested, anyone regardless of acomplishment could logically be included, and I don't think anyone wants that. Please remember to create a section in the current article that notes some of the most distinguished alums before moving the whole list over.--Shoreranger 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the title (i.e., "Notable Fordham University Alumni"). IMO, the list of the most distinguished alumni should include Mary Higgins Clark, Alan Alda, Denzel Washington, Geraldine Ferraro (law), Charles Osgood, Vin Scully, and Vince Lombardi. Others worth considering: Mario Gabelli, John Sexton, G. Gordon Liddy, Bob Keeshan, Dylan McDermott, Andrew Cuomo, Mike Breen, Jim Dwyer, Michael Kay, Tony Reali, P.J. Carlesimo, Frankie Frisch, and Wellington Mara. Theblueline 03:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In the context of his association with the TV series M*A*S*H, Alan Alda's being a Fordham alumnus is interesting in light of the fact that the Rose Hill campus includes a John Mulcahy Hall and a Houlihan Park.

I moved the list to Notable Fordham University Alumni. However, isn't "List of" is Wiki style?

P.S. Those pictures rock! Great idea.--Mantanmoreland 00:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The pictures are awesome! Good job, theblueline! 68.79.154.94 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I got the idea from the Georgetown University and Duke University Wikipedia articles, which have pictures of their notable alumni. Theblueline 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the new article, but I don't think the pictures are really necessary. If you want to see a picture of that person, you can just click on their article, right? --Awiseman 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but it does spiff up the page.--Mantanmoreland 19:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the separate article should be entitled "List of Notable...etc" or am I the only one who is concerned by the absence of those two words? (I shall interpret continued silence to mean "yes")--Mantanmoreland 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with "List of notable Fordham University alumni". Theblueline 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the style. I shall rename and make the appropriate modification in the article.--Mantanmoreland 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The new page is great. I am wondering, however, if we can get a little more professional diverstiy in the sampling that is left in this entry. The current group seems very heavy on the media arts, with the exception of Farraro. Could we get some of the more pretigious folks from other fields? And how about getting out of the 20th century? Oh, and what about Shaw, the famed Civil War officer depicted in the film "Glory"? He went to the "Prep" when it was one institution within St. John's - doesn't he deserve a mention? What do others think?--Shoreranger 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Louis Calder Center

Is by far not the only biological field station in the NYC metro area. Columbia's Lamont-Doherty, for example.--Shoreranger 03:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If true, then someone should tell the University. According to the Louis Calder Center's official website, "no other full-time ecological research field station exists within the metropolitan area." Perhaps the key work is "full-time." Is Columbia's field station a part-time facility? [5] Theblueline 16:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is very much a full-time facility. As I understand it, it is a 24/7/365 facility. Anyone interested may wish to visit http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/. However, looking more carefully at the claim, perhaps the operative word is "biological", as Lamont-Doherty seems to focus on the geophysical sciences. I confess my initial impression of the Fordham claim was that there were no other environmental science stations at all in the area besides the Calder Center. Stonybrook and Hampton colleges have marine biology field operations, but I won't press the point. Sapentia et Doctrina!--Shoreranger 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, where are we going with this? Shall we change "ecological" to "biological", as clearly there are other educational institutions with field operations studying the ecology from various perspectives.--Shoreranger 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In reading the official websites of Fordham's Louis Calder Center and Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, my impression is that the research done at the Calder Center is ecologically oriented whereas the research at Lamont-Doherty is geologically oriented. Theblueline 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, however this still does not address the Stonybrook and Hampton colleges in Long Island, which would seem just as much in the metropolitan area.--Shoreranger 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of Hampton College and I can't find anything about it on the web. However, there is a Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. I'll look into Stony Brook's field station when I have time. Theblueline 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, I was writing from memory. Southampton College of Long Island University is what I was thinking of.--Shoreranger 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just visited the website for Lamont-Doherty at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ and I am afraid, despite the claims on the Fordham website to the contrary, it seems plain that the Calder Center is definitely not the "only" ecological or biological (both terms are used to decribe it in this article, and on the Fordham website) field station in the NY metro area. Lamont-Doherty is only one example, but it is a glaring one. Look at the website and one will find research iz certainly ecological, and with significant biological research and study. I do not contend that Fordham does not claim the Calder Center as the only place of its kind in the NYC area, I only contend that it is not accurate and should be removed from this article.

"University's official journal of record"

Is there a reference for this claim concerning The Fordham Ram?

The newspaper's home page states "The Ram is the University journal of record." I guess the claim is okay if the word "official" is left out.[6] Theblueline 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Official" is accurate. "Claims to be" is unnecessary.--Mantanmoreland 21:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis of the "official" label? Is it on the paper's banner somewhere? Or an announcement by the University president or board to this effect? I am also interested in the protocol for the qualifier "award winning": is there a temporal relationship that justifies the use of this phrase? For example: if a paper won an award in the last 5 years, or even a decade, this would seem appropriate. Is there consensus on that? If a paper hasn't won a prize in over ten-years, especially a student paper that has a complete turn-over of staff at least every four years (accounting graduation of staff), then the title may seem less appropriate. Also, the term "award winning" now seems to require some clarification in order not to seem misleading to the reader. Does "award winning" automatically imply conference from a nationally-recognized organization, or does it include acknowledgement from the local chamber of commerce or church council for running free advertising? The latter may not be what the reader expects. A quick internet search did not pull up any recent awards for "The Ram" or "The Fordham Ram", but perhaps I was not specific enough. Please provide more information and/or justification. --Shoreranger 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you can remove "award winning," as that is "peacock language" and not favored. As for "official" -- I saw it referred to that way on the university website, but can't find it. So, if you wish to remove, do so and if I or someone else stumbles upon an official reference to this "official" biz, it can be put back on with a cite.--Mantanmoreland 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed, and then replaced. There seems to be some attention to this matter that is out of the context of this discussion. What to do?--Shoreranger 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hockey section

The hockey part lists a bunch of players on there, I get the feeling it's a vanity edit. It also said their house was the "most elite social building on campus," which I removed as unverifiable and vanity. Can somebody clean up the hockey players? --Awiseman 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and was going to say something. And the part about the players that did not perform well is somewhat inappropriate and unnecessary, even if it's true. A little information on the hockey program overall and their recent championship is good, but not much else besides that. --scskowron 22:25, 21 July 2006 UTC

I agree. This section needs a lot of work. No problem at all mentioning the sport and the championship, but the individual players and opinionns on performance should really go.--Shoreranger 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Can we get a source for the claim that Fidel Castro played shortstop for Fordham, please?--Shoreranger 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are affiliations noted in two places?

Why is there a special section for affiliations, and an affiliation is noted in the opening paragraph? Shouldn't it all be in one place? If the point is to identify Fordham as a university with a Jesuit heritage, then just say that. It seems to be pretty well covered in the second paragraph, anyway. Otherwise, there are a number of acreditation and affiliations that are just as important to the university's standing and character that could go in the opening paragraph.--Shoreranger 17:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hughes "combative"?

Can we get a citation for this accusation? I see that the Wiki bio. that links to his name does not note him to be particularly "combative". Additionally, this seems like a subjective opinion, not an objective one, even if we were to see a citation. Perhaps it should be removed.--Shoreranger 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I added citation. Was it really necessary? 68.79.154.94 20:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. I find the whole thing subjective, and feel the reference to "combative" subjective. I also find the source material to be biased. Even if the AOH, apparently, finds the term "combative" to be complementary, it is still a matter of perspective and subject to opinion. Many of those Hughes worked to better found him a 'stalwart defender'. Perhaps to the establishment he found unwelcoming to his ideas he was considered "combative", or "obstinate", or any number of subjective descriptors. The term should go, IMO.--Shoreranger 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the sentence using the following citation as a reference: [7]. Hope it pleases. If not, I'll just have to keep googling. 68.79.154.94 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, please sign your comments (an IP address does not substitute for a signature in the context of Wikipedia, I understand). Consensus is what we are at here, I thought. I suggest you contribute to Hughes' rather sparse bio and remove the editorial comments on him from the Fordham entry. That is where "googling" efforts should be spent, it seems to me. The facts of Hughes' successes should speak for themselves. It does not seem necessary to subjectively comment on him in this entry. How he was perceived in his own day, and is re-interpreted today, is much better served in his bio entry -- if anywhere in Wikipedia -- and should be avoided here. The same would go for anyone else in the Fordham entry. The only reason I would even consider leaving the "Dagger John" mention at all (and I am leaning towards debating for its removal now, too, for similar reasons) is that it was a factual nick-name, and it begs explanation. The cross-inscription next to his name is more than adequate, and not at all subjective.--Shoreranger 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Made change using the following source: [8] 68.79.154.94 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Commencement speakers?

I'm not sure this article needs to have them, as most colleges have notable commencement speakers. --Awiseman 16:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same, today. I suggest they be removed, it is a bit silly.Shoreranger 01:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll do that. --Awiseman 20:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be notable to list alumni who later came back as commencement speakers. Are all the ones listed now alumni? Wl219 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Too long

Seeing as this article is too long, I think the Global Outreach and Affiliations portions can be eliminated. Thoughts?

I'm thinking Athletics can be split into its own article. Wl219 01:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at comparable Jesuit institutions, such as the University of Notre Dame, they have less information regarding athletics. Furthermore, there are precedents for longer articles on individual college sports teams, the 'California Golden Bears' for instance, which links from the UC Berkeley article. Given the ammount of information already gathered, I believe the "Fordham Rams" merit their own article, linked from the Fordham page. I also believe it would be prudent not to delete any relevant sections entirely, especially involving ongoing institutions, given the propensity for people to repost sections and the potential for retributive posts. 02:55, 24 October 2006

FYI: University of Notre Dame is not a Jesuit institution.Shoreranger 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Both or either can be justified as its own article, IMO.Shoreranger 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the own article, more so with Global Outreach as the article can expand through more detailed information and events, IMO. PaladinHero1, 2:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If Notre Dame, which has tons of athletic tradition, has less on athletics than Fordham, then I definitely think a new article could be split off. --Awiseman 20:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't cut out the Global Outreach. I think that's a distinguishing feature of Fordham University when compared to other similar Universities. --scskowron 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary to "cut". A 2-3 sentence topic can remain for GO! with a link to a WIki page that has more extensive info.Shoreranger 16:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I cut some of the opening paragraph to make it more uniform when compared to other University pages. The other content about rankings is covered later in the article, and makes the beginning sounds too pro-Fordham. All the sources and such jumped into the content too quickly, instead of just giving the reader a quick overview of the university, as the opening paragraph should.Icetitan17 17:31, 1 November 2006

As long as the information you deleted from the intro is covered elsewhere then that looks good to me. --ElKevbo 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where is the rankings content covered eleswhere? A quick look at the article did not come up with it. In addition, the other information deleted was useful, as well. The new opening paragraph is fine, but the missing info needs to be incorporated eleswhere.Shoreranger 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The rankings content is covered under academic reputation. It might be suitable to put in the opening paragraph, but currently the opening paragraph is about two paragraphs too long. Any other college page, even Ivy Leagues, only contain one opening paragraph, and then the index. It needs to be consolidated or something. There's too much there. Suggestions would be much appreciated. Icetitan17 19:46, 5 November 2006

I created the "Academic Reputation" section myself recently (and the "Academic Ideals" section), using the text that had been removed from the introduction. There is a notable lack of uniformity in format for introductory paragraphs in Wiki university articles (see Columbia University, Georgetown University, University of Notre Dame), so the current paragraph - while not perfect - fits somewhere within this spectrum. You may notice that as of this writing the 'too long' warning at the top of the article is now gone, presumably due to moving the bulk of the athletics and Global Outreach text to their own articles.Shoreranger 15:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I note with some interest that the articles you cited are not featured articles. Has anyone ever compared the featured university articles to identify similarities? Does the relevant project (I think there is some sort of university or higher ed project) provide any guidance in this area? I'm certainly not impugning the fine work that you have done, Shoreranger; I just hate to see Wikipedia editors keep reinventing the wheel (and I watch many university articles and it's more common than it should be). --ElKevbo 15:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seismic Center

Added the section regarding the seismic station - this is unique to the university and I think appropriate to include here. Jeeper275 04:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Jeeper275

Excellent addition. I will wikify some of the links --scskowron 15 December 2006 23:23 (UTC)

Irish-American?

Since when? Of the first 10 presidents of Fordham, five weren't Irish. Of the 13 'notable faculty" listed in the very article, 9 aren't Irish. Of the six listed in this article as "notable alumni," five aren't Irish. Yes, a lot of Irish went to Fordham, because it was a Catholic school in NYC -- but a lot of Italians went there too, and it housed the original center for the study of Eastern European Catholicism (the Ciszek center), etc. It's Lincoln Center campus was largely the work of Robert Moses and was named for Leon Lowenstein. I think calling it a "traditionally Irish-American" school is rather narrow and inaccurate. HarvardOxon 05:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Yes, Irish make up a sizable population of those associated with Fordham, but I do not see an official or even de facto connection. Scskowron 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC) --Mantanmoreland 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. Firstly, I don't believe the assertion that 5 of the first 10 presidents were not of any Irish heritage is accurate. Regardless, the majority in the 150+ years have been of Irish heritage. Admittedly, the "notable faculty" section is woefully incomplete, and in desperate need of augmentation and expansion. However, its shortcomings in no way demonstrate a lack of Irish-American tradition at Fordham, nor even a lack of Irish-American faculty, historically. The Lincoln Center campus would certainly not have been possible without the Licnoln Center Renewal Project masterminded by Robert Moses, but that is far from making it "largely his work". Rather, it appears the campus was largely the work of an Irish-American university president and an Irish-American cardinal. Leon Lowenstein was not an alum, but the founder of a philanthropic foundation which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, provided major funding for the construction of the building that was subsequently named in gratitude. For information that supports the Irish-American tradition for the majority of the institution's history, I suggest reading a few of the books listed in the articles as references and a perusal of the yearbooks, especially those from the pre-WW II era.Shoreranger 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read all the books -- in fact, I reviewed some of them for academic pubs, and I've written on Fordham's history independently. Nobody said there haven't been Irish-Americans at Fordham. What's being questioned is categorizing it as an Irish school -- it isn't and it wasn't. It is an urban Catholic school, therefore largely Irish, but also largely Italian and a lot of other things. It's been heavily influenced by French and German Jesuits. The majority of Harvard's leaders for the majority of its years of existence were descended from folks from Great Britain, but do we want to categorize Harvard as a "British-American" school? Classing Fordham as Irish (why do we have to categorize it anyway) smacks of marginalization, ghettoization, and makes it seem like Vince Lombardi must have been some sort of alien "exception."HarvardOxon 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually am reluctant to place ethnic tags on people or institutions. However in this instance there is more justification than most. Fordham has an Institute for Irish Studies, and if you look at the web page for that it says as follows:

"Fordham University is a particularly appropriate home for such an institute in view of the university’s long-standing relations with the Irish-American community and Ireland. Substantial portions of the alumni, student body, faculty and administration have Irish roots."[9]

Since that is the university's own position on the issue I would tend to favor inclusion in the category. While I don't like the category very much, it does indeed exist. Since the category exists, Fordham clearly belongs in it.--Mantanmoreland 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fordham was also home to the Center For Eastern Christian Studies -- so why isn't it a "traditionally Ukrainian University"? It is home to the Latino Studies Institute. It was all male for over 125 years -- should we call it a "traditionally male university"? "Substantial portions" of the US are African-American -- should we start refrring to America as a "Back country"? The argument makes no sense. It is a Catholic school by its chartered identity. It is Jesuit by its affiliation with the order. And what "psotion" of the university? That they have had a lot of Irish kids? Ask them and they will also tell you they've had a lot of Italian kids, and Black kids -- where does that above quote say that Fordham is an "Irish-American university"? The tag is absurd.HarvardOxon 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I share your distaste for ethnic labels in general. I think they are overapplied at Wiki. However, I think the points you raise could be applied to any university in that category.--Mantanmoreland 22:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to complete the record here: http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/public_affairs/fordham_magazine/fordham_online/fordhams_irish_conne_19022.asp

Fordham’s Irish Connections

By Carolyn Farrar (FCRH ’82)

The ties between Fordham University and Ireland are deep and long-lasting, beginning with its founder, Archbishop John Hughes, who was born in County Tyrone. In the years since, three-quarters of Fordham’s presidents have had Irish names, including the incumbent, Joseph M. McShane, S.J., and his immediate predecessor, Joseph A. O’Hare, S.J.

Fordham as a reflection of the changing Irish-American condition since the mid-1800s could serve as the subject of a book in itself.

In 1847, at the height of the great famine in Ireland, St. John’s College, which would become Fordham University, sent Jesuits to care for the thousands of sick and starving Irish emigrants who came to Canada. In the next decade a Kingsbridge Road blacksmith warned that Fordham Heights members of the anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party were planning to attack and burn the college. John Larkin, S.J., Fordham’s president at the time, armed the college with 12 muskets furnished by the U.S. Government, though the attack never materialized.

From 1928 to 1932, Belfast-born poet Joseph Campbell brought his School of Irish Studies into the Fordham curriculum, and though the school left, the interest remained. Wrote The New York Times in 1941: “So marked has been the trend toward Irish studies at Fordham University in the last 20 years that Fordham now enjoys a position as the popular center of Irish culture in the United States, at least as far as the variety of courses in the language, history, art, literature, and music of the country is concerned.” In that same year, Fordham held an Irish feis, or festival, that included competitions in step dancing, harp, Irish language, and essay and poetry writing.

Fordham and Marymount currently facilitate study abroad programs at five Irish universities and Fordham Law runs a monthlong summer program that enables law students interested in international law and the ongoing dialogue between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic to study in Dublin and Belfast.

Fordham’s rolls of Irish alumni and faculty is also a long and illustrious one. It includes officers in the U.S. Civil War, such as John E. McMahon, an 1852 graduate and first colonel of the 155 New York Volunteers; writers such as Mary Higgins Clark (FCLC ’79), Peter Quinn (GSAS ’75); and Susan Cahill (GSAS ’95), whose work includes For the Love of Ireland: A Literary Companion for Readers and Travelers; and Susan’s husband, Thomas Cahill (FCRH ’62), the author of several books, including How the Irish Saved Civilization. Fordham alumnus William J. Flynn (GSAS ’51), chairman of Mutual of America, was a prominent figure in the early stages of the current peace process in Northern Ireland. The late former president James C. Finlay, S.J., also a Fordham alumnus, was one of many Fordham faculty members who was born in Ireland.

The University’s Irish connections, its people and programs, link Fordham not only with Ireland but with Irish-America in all its manifestations. In one last example, Fordham marches every year in New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day parade. And when the parade passes the reviewing stand, bands, county associations, firefighters and police officers are also passing another great monument left by Fordham founder John Hughes: St. Patrick’s Cathedral, which has become a center of celebration and consolation during so many New York moments.

The information in this piece came from the article “Fordham University: The Irish Connection,” by Thomas P. Farley (FCRH ’90), which appeared in a 1997 issue of Hibernia magazine; and from Fordham: A History and Memoir by Raymond A. Schroth, S.J. (Loyola Press, 2002). Shoreranger 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Results from the peer review

Anyone want to give a hand to correct these? Shoreranger 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of Fordham University.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 miles, use 30 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30 miles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?] *Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments struck through with a line have been addressed as of this writing. Shoreranger 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to engineering Co-op program with Columbia

Scskowron, who has made many fine edits to the article, has removed the reference to the above-named program on the basis that is is too small to be included in the intro. The original intent, however, was to illuminate a relatively unigue and successful program with another prestigious institution in the context of that paragraph, which includes a mention of the Alvin Ailey program. Please discuss. Shoreranger 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps re-insert it in the subsection Academics > Undergraduate colleges or make a new subsection between Graduate schools and Libraries called "Specialty degree programs" or similar and re-insert there. Wl219 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think a section about special academic programs is due. The cooperative program with Columbia is not unique to Fordham. Columbia has a list of all the institutions with which it is affiliated in the engineering program (check this reference). . I've looked at some other high-profile schools like Brandeis, Bowdoin, and Holy Cross and they don't mention Columbia in their wiki article. Perhaps we could generate a section called "Special Undergraduate Academic Programs" or the like, and add some or all of the following: 3-2 Engineering Program with Columbia and Case Western Reserve, Honors Programs at LC+RH, Mateo Ricci society, Fordham/Ailey BFA program, ROTC (move the existing section), Service Learning, 3-3 Program w/ Fordham Law, Pre-Law/Med/Dental/Architecture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scskowron (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Ok, this sounds like it is going somewhere, but keep in mind the article is already pretty long. Also worth noting, for example, is that Columbia includes mentioin of its affiliation with Juliard in its intro, which seems to imply keeping the Alvin Ailey mention in the Fordham into has precedent. In addition, I would like to see some of the social aspects of the ROTC program stay in "student activities", ie "Dining In", etc.Shoreranger 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. If the educational affiliations were to be mentioned in the intro, could they be more succinct like Columbia's? E.g. one sentence only? Scskowron 19:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a stab at a more "succinct" text of affiliations? Also, I really like the idea of incorporating something on the Mateo Ricci Society - would you give that a shot, too?Shoreranger 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article length, redux

Traditions seems long enough to split into a new article without triggering the usual notability/AfD nazis. What about also splitting off sections on the 3 main campuses? There's not a lot of content for them right now, but I think a lot of the history section can be split and merged into a Rose Hill article, and the Lincoln Center campus article could be greatly expanded with info on Moses/McGinley's political efforts to get it built (see Caro's The Power Broker). I assume Marymount had its own article before its full merger with Fordham? I don't know if student activities could be split off, do other university articles do that? Wl219 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jesuit University of New York

It seems everything with the university seal on it has this same motto, 'The Jesuit University of New York'. It's the University's tagline - is it appropriate to include in the wiki article anywhere? Scskowron 04:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article makes it very clear that the university is both Jesuit, and in New York. There does not seem to be a need to add another line to reiterate this in an already long article. Shoreranger 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Athletics" a "Student Activity" or not?

I see an anonymous editor has seperated Athletics from the Student Activities section. It strikes me this is illogical and somewhat disingenuous, but seemed like it might be worth discussion before reversting (which is my inclination).

Is there a good case for this change? If there is no discussion or the concensus is otherwise it will be reverted. Shoreranger 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No discussion or defense of the change, so I am reverting. Shoreranger 13:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the IP has a point. I usually interpret "student activities" to mean clubs and such, while athletics is a universe unto itself.--Mantanmoreland 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, any further comment? Hey, I'm not reverting unless there is a strong feeling to do so. --Mantanmoreland 18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think athletics and student activities should be somewhat separated. I see them as separate entities. A school can have fantastic athletics programs and little student activities and vice versa. Scskowron 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Some college articles separate them, some don't, so I think it is not a question of Wiki style but the preferences of the editors of each individual article. Two at random: Dartmouth College separates the two, Columbia University does not. --Mantanmoreland 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Titles/Presidents

The section of the article listing the presidents may have a stylistic redundancy. Saying Rev. So and So, S.J. is repetitive because S.J. indicates the man is a member of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, and to be a member one must be ordained. I would suggest removing the "Revs" for those who have an S.J. in his title. Clgregor 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• It should remain. Jesuits may carry the title "Reverend", "Most Reverend", "Monsignor", "Cardinal", etc. "S.J." doesn't always cover it. Shoreranger 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Business School

I am currently a graduate business student at Lincoln center. I recall during the mid-1990's the business school was named (I'm pretty sure it was named after this person): The "Joseph Martino" school of business. First of all, am I correct? If so, Why was the business school's name changed and who was Mr. Martino? --24.189.35.249 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My first instinct is that is isn't correct if you can't find it on the Fodham website. Shoreranger (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Independent institution"

I question the use of this term in the introductory sentence: "Though now officially an independent institution 'in the Jesuit tradition', it was originally founded by the Diocese of New York in 1841 as St. John's College." This seems imprecise. What is meant by the term "independent institution"? And what is meant by "now officially"? The word "independent" appears to be taken from FU's website, but its meaning is no more clear there. The sentence seems to imply that FU is only recently independent of the Archdiocese of NY, but what is the evidence that it's any more independent "now officially" than in the past, when Archbp. Hughes recruited some Jesuits to run St. John's College. And if it's more independent "now", then when and how did it become so, and what makes it "officially" so? Does a majority lay board make a college "independent"? The school certainly isn't independent of the Society of Jesus. Cloonmore (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a term of art. See here. There seems to be an entire association of "independent" colleges, whatever that means. I have no idea what distinguishes an "independent" from a "dependent" college. The "about" section on that website did not provide any useful information on the concept. I did notice that NYU, Yeshiva and Columbia are also "independent" members in good standing of the association. Thus I assume that "independence" is not a sign of a relationship with any particular religious body. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw for heaven's sake, all "independent" means is not affiliated with the government. All that research wasted. Look at Independent school. I now wonder if the lead paragraph is misleading. There is no contradiction between being Jesuit affiliated and being "independent," according to the Wiki definition.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fordham does not enjoy the financial support of either the Catholic Church or any government, except in grants and awards it must compete for or funding which all comparable educational insitutions receive. The majority non-clergy membership of the trustees was in part, I understand, a legal requirement to be considered truely an independent institution in the state (and coincided with formal land transfer and development of the Lincoln Center campus, without competitive bid?). If I recall correctly this is covered in one or more of the books in the article's reference section, and may also be included in The Power Broker, a biography of Robert Moses, who masterminded the Lincoln Square Renewal Project. Technically, and in many real ways, Fordham is not a "Jesuit entity" - that is to say, while the trustees accept and adopt Jesuit philosophy and practices in education they do so voluntarily, the institution is not required to do so by its "ownership" by the Society of Jesus or by the majority of the board being compelled to do so by vows or orders. It may seem a subtle difference, but an important one. I suspect in a real estate sense the school does not belong to the Society of Jesus, either. The word "independent" is an accurate description, is properly linked for clarity, and adds understanding in the opening paragraph. I believe it should remain.Shoreranger (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. "Independence" just means no government involvement. Even if it was a "Jesuit entity" or "owned" by the Jesuits it would still be "independent." Though I tweaked the first paragraph, I am not sure that distinction is made clearly. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Independent School refers mostly to private elementary and high schools, not colleges and universities. If you look at the links at the bottom of the article, they are all indexes of mostly primary and secondary schools. I searched for Fordham, and only Fordham Prep came up. With that said, I am not saying that Fordham is not an independent school - it is. I just don't think the Independent School article is the appropriate resource in this matter. Scskowron (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, and I cited this link earlier but then crossed it out, there is an association of "independent" colleges to which Fordham belongs. A very long list of colleges call themselves "independent."[10] They take the term seriously enough to form an entire organization around the concept.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right -- "independent" seems to mean the same as "private", i.e., non-public, non-governmental. That's clear not just from the Independent School article (which I agree seems inapplicable to post-secondary institutions), but also from the CICU link [11], as well as the link to the NAICU's webpage in the article's info box [12]. The NAICU uses the term "independent" as a synonym for "private, nonprofit." So, getting back to my original point, it seems that the article's implicit contrast of "independent" with "Catholic" (or "Jesuit") is wrong. Moreover, the school's website describes FU as both a Catholic university and a Jesuit university, so any suggestion that the school has completely shed that identity would likewise be wrong. I think the introductory paragraph needs some work. (I also think "research university" is a meaningless term. "University" would do just as well.) I'm going to take a crack at re-writing the initial paragraph and post a draft here (for hosannas or catcalls!) Cloonmore (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I did a little tinkering a few days ago but it wasn't enough. I just did some additional tinkering.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bad as far as it goes, Mantanmoreland, but I think more drastic surgery is needed. I'll start a new thread with my suggested revision. Cloonmore (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing is clunky. While "independent" is accurate it may be misleading. Why not just drop it entirely?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"private" refers to the relationship with a government, indicating it is not under direct govermental control. "Independent" refers to the relationship with the Church, indicating it is not under direct control of a diocese, order, etc. Even the previoiusly referenced article on "independent school" addresses this with: "the more precise usage of the term excludes parochial schools and other schools with financial dependence upon outside organizations." Fordham has no such outside financial dependence on the Jesuit order, the Archdiocese, or Rome, and is tehrefore by this definition an "idependent school." Fordham is still a "Jesuit" and "Catholic" university because the trustees choose to embrace those traditions, not because they are beholden to them by ownership or law (canonical or otherwise). This was a big deal when it occured, as I understand my reading of Fordham history. Both terms are useful, both are correct, and both should be embraced, in my opinion.Shoreranger (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Until a few days ago I'd have thought that too. However, apparently "independent college" is a very serious term of art that is duplicative of "private." So I kind of see Cloonmore's point.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the less strict use of the term, why not reference its financial independence in the introduction and discuss it later? I skimmed through the article and saw that was not specifically discussed, unless there is a reference I overlooked.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Independence" in this context goes beyond the financial, though in this country that in effect may heavily influence any other type of independence. Fordham University is independent because no other entity - not the Jesuits, not the Archdiocese, not the Papal See, can decide to close its doors. Only the *independent* board of trustees can do that. While having its own coffers is most definately one way to insure that independence, it does not determine it. There are other schools out there that are "private" but not "independent" - Fordham is, however, both. And, it makes a difference. Shoreranger (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That should be in the article, explicitly.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoreranger, I haven't seen any citation in support for your personal opinion that "independent" means "non-religious" or "not religiously funded." In fact, your view is contradicted by the very source you cited as a reference in your revert of my deletion of that term from the infobox. See NAICU's website, which states that "NAICU reflects the diversity of private, nonprofit higher education in the United States. Members include ... church- and faith-related institutions ... NAICU is committed to celebrating and protecting this diversity of the nation's private colleges and universities". "Independent" is merely a synonym for "private", as your own sources prove. As such, it adds nothing and should be deleted. Cloonmore (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The NAICU link: [[13]].Cloonmore (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never expressed any such opinion that "independent means nonreligious", so you would not find any citation to that effect provided by me. I have explained what I understand "independent" to mean in this context above and clarified it at least once already. Please read carefully what I have already written, particularly in relation to independent boards of trustees. Also, my interpretation of the NAICU information you have referred to. By this definition, all independent schools are private, but not all private schools are independent. It is therefore not synonymous. Fordham is both independent and private, as noted earlier. Religious or non-religious is not really the point, and is not actually being debated here - at least by me. Shoreranger (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoreranger, your position, as best as I understand it, is that "independent" means not under the control of the church. You haven't cited any support for your position, and you haven't addressed the NAICU definition or the independent school definition, both of which are at variance with your position. Therefore, your position is, as best I can see, simply your opinion. I'm sure you'd agree that that's an inadequate basis for use of the term. Cloonmore (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Old St. Pat's

Where does the claim that the interior of the old cathedral is inside the University Church come from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordham_University#Rose_Hill If true, we need to cite it. If not, we have to remove it as urban legend.Shoreranger (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So says the University website.[14]--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be using that one at cocktail parties - I never knew.Shoreranger (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true, When the Cardinal came up to bless the new Walsh Library, Father O'hare said he wanted to give the windows back, and gave Cardinal O'connor a small replica of the windows. Mikeyoung —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.106.156 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraphs

I suggest recrafting the two introductory paragraphs along the following lines (some of which was nicked from the College of the Holy Cross and Georgetown University articles):

Fordham University is a private, coeducational, Jesuit university located in the State of New York. It was founded in 1841 as St. John's College in the Fordham section of the Bronx by Bishop John Hughes. The school was renamed Fordham University in 1907. It now comprises three campuses in New York City and Westchester County and is the largest of the 28 member institutions in the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

From six students at its founding, enrollment at Fordham University has grown to more than 8,000 undergraduate students and 7,000 graduate students at its three campuses: Rose Hill in the Bronx (original site of St. John’s College), Lincoln Center in Manhattan, and Marymount in Tarrytown. The University also maintains programs in the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom. Fordham awards bachelor's (BA, BFA, and BS), master's, and doctoral degrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloonmore (talk • contribs) 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While I do not wish to disparrage your efforts, the existing introduction is on par with the articles for Columbia University and Harvard University - or if a comparison with a "Catholic" university is desired, it is also on par with the introduction for University of Notre Dame. Shoreranger (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, Shoreranger. I posted it here before changing the article myself precisely to get constructive comments. I'm not sure what you mean by "on par", though. I don't think Fordham is comparable to the Ivies. I also don't think that the intro to this article is as good as Notre Dame's. The current intro is inelegant, clunky (to use Mantanmoreland's artful word) and imprecise. I've already pointed out the problems with "independent" (more later). What does the word "research" add to "university"? What is "permanent" about the MiMBA program? I've found many references to the college being founded by Bp. Hughes; none to it being founded by the "Diocese of New York." I understand FU to be the largest school in the AJCU, not "one of the largest." I could go on with a separate discussion entry for each of these problems and more, but you get the point, I'm sure. Easier simply to offer a rewrite. I don't claim it to be perfect, but it's better than what's there now. Cloonmore (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoreranger is not saying Fordham is on par with Columbia, but rather that the quality and format of the introductory paragraph is. It appears that some schools set the trend for effective wiki university articles, and in order to create an effective Fordham wiki page we should consider these formats. "Research" is a classification by Carnegie Mellon given to 227 schools based on the amount of doctoral research that is conducted and published. Holy Cross for example is not a research university (it isn't even a university). As far as being the largest of the AJCU, there is no defined criterion for making a school "larger" than another. Does it mean undergraduate population? Total population? Students and faculty? Area? Endowment? You get the point. I would not object to claiming Fordham to be the largest of the AJCU if you qualify what exactly makes it the largest. As far as the discrepancy of who founded it, it appears that Bishop Hughes was acting in his capacity as bishop of the Diocese of New York when it was established, thus making it a diocesan creation. Perhaps this could be elucidated.Scskowron (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Scskowron, thanks for your thoughts. My responses:

• Ivy articles. Aside from the question of whether the articles on the Ivies do indeed "set the trend" for university articles (I'm not sure they necessarily do or should), the FU article is not as well written and cogent as either Columbia's or Harvard's. I'm trying to make it better.
• Research university. You appear to be arguing for a specialized, narrow definition to this term, which isn't borne out by the wiki page university. I believe the article should use readily understandable terminology, not highly specialized or technical terms that aren't clearly defined. And the actual Carnegie Mellon classification is not even "research university" but "RU/H (Research Universities - high research activity)," as distinguished from "RU/VH (Research Universities - very high research activity). The term "university" does just as well (as your comment about Holy Cross illustrates).
• "Largest". Your argument against "largest" is illogical because it applies with equal force to the phrase, "one of the largest", which you favor. If you have no idea what the word "largest" means, then both usages are equally and utterly meaningless. In any event, I believe it refers in both cases to student population, undergrad & grad. I will look for clarification.
• Diocese of NY. I'm not sure that its technically correct to attribute FU's founding to the Diocese of NY. Consider that Bp. Hughes was not, as you claim, Bishop of the Diocese of New York in 1841 but coadjutor bishop. Cloonmore (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Dagger John didn't have $40G of his own money buring a hole in his cassok, and so the money came from the diocese, which he had the authority to dispense a coadjucator - who has all the effective power of the bishop save ceremonial, and is the "heir-apparent" and therefore has the staying power to insure sucess of initiatives begun before actually assuming the office. Shoreranger (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted Cloonmore. However I stand by my original statement that the Diocese of New York at least has to be mentioned in some manner as to Fordham's creation, even if it is qualified by who actually set the university in motion. As far as the "largest" debate, I don't think my original edit was illogical because there is no consensus over what makes a university the largest, although intuition tells us that Fordham certainly has to be up there. I do have a suggestion though - that we declare Fordham the largest in terms of total student population. This was my original intention in adding this sentence, and you seem to agree. The main problem is that I cannot find a single reference that will explicitly list all the populations of every AJCU university. The only way to cite this data is to extrapolate it from each school's individual statistics, and I'm not sure the proper way to reference that. With regard to your other two points, I can agree. Scskowron (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We now have no less than five "Jesuit" or "Society of Jesus" references in the opening paragraph. Isn't this a little bit of overkill? Can we pare this back a bit? Sounds like there is a Jesuit lurking around every corridor at Fordham now! There's 35 in the whole university!! Sounds a little desperate to associate the school with the Jesuits to the casual reader, I think. The school was in the care of the Jesuits and is now "in the Jesuit tradition" - isn't that enough about the Jesuits when it comes to the introduction? With all the recent edits, I now suspect that mentioning it is a member of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities is not important enough to be in the first paragraph, either. Shoreranger (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if 5 references to the Jebbies are too many, but my proposal above has exactly 2. But there are more than 35 in the Fordham Jesuit Comm'y, living and/or working on campus; it appears there are between 80 and 90. I agree that the AJCU reference could be pushed down to one of the paragraphs following, together with citation to FU's membership in the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, which someone recently added to the article. Cloonmore (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was basing my number of Jesuits in the University on the "Fordham at a Glance' web page, which lists the following:

Jesuits at Fordham: 35 Jesuits among faculty: 21 Jesuits in University administration: 14

Perahps there is a case for more Jesuits for the "community-at-large", but I qualified my reference to the University specifically, and the article is about the University not the larger community.

Maybe we can use a version of Cloonmore's opening two paras without losing the remaining paras of the introduction. Shoreranger (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can agree we can revise Cloonmore's paragraphs to include. There are 83 Jesuits at Fordham, although only 30 are involved in teaching and administration. The others are either associated with Prep or have some other mission and simply reside in the community. Source: Jesuit Community page Scskowron (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Jesuit Community page indicates at least 39 directly involved in teaching/admin.Cloonmore (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess that I have lost the thread of this conversation and am a little confused as to why it is necessary to rewrite the entire introductory paragraph. Can someone please point out the main issues? I just don't see any serious problem with what is there now. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The copyright issues noted below are of far greater urgency.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the copyright issues are of greater urgency, and am glad they have been discovered and are being dealt with. Having said that, I there has already been a lot of discussion about improving the introduction already, and I am making the following suggestions to improve it based on that discussion:

Fordham University is a private, coeducational research university in the United States, with three campuses located in and around New York City. It was founded by the Diocese of New York in 1841 as St. John's College and placed in the care of the Society of Jesus shortly thereafter. The University has since become an independent institution under a lay Board of Trustees, which declares the University to be "in the Jesuit tradition."

I suggest the other paragraphs following remain as-is. If someone real burning desire to discuss the broader "Jesuit Community" that includes all the various Fordham-titled instititutions beyond the University, then I suggest take a stab at writing a paragraph on it and propose a place elsewhere in the article for it to reside. Such information is not significant to the encyclopedia article reader when first being introduced to the University, and may arguably have very little to do with the University at all and might be better included in a article abou the New York Province than here. Shoreranger (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Shoreranger, your proposal perpetuates problems already identified: "research university," vagueness of "independent," ambiguity re founding by Bp Hughes (as all sources state), and wordiness, e.g., "which declares the University to be 'in the Jesuit tradition'" should be replaced simply with the modifier "Jesuit" for "university" in the first line. Cloonmore (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am all for additional suggestions, but you are the only one who seems not to accept the explainations already laid out for each of these. Are you really suggesting, for example, that Hughes was not acting on behalf of the Diocese but as an individual? This is not rational, it seems to me. You are doing good work, particularly addressing the serious copyright problems, and I encourage you to continue to participate in the introduction discussion, but at some point rational explainations have to be accepted, and these all seem to have been addressed already. Shoreranger (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable Alumni redux

Who the heck is Eugene Shvidler? Cloonmore (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He is a billionaire alumnus. His notability for a business school is pretty self-explanatory, I think. Scskowron (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Scskowron, the question was somewhat rhetorical. He's obviously a Russian billionaire alumnus. How does that merit his inclusion here? I think there's an argument that he's sufficiently notable for inclusion on the separate List of Fordham University people page (from which he's absent), but he's completely out of place on this short list among the likes of Vince Lombardi, William Casey and Denzel Washington. Cloonmore (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I understand, I think you're right. He does not belong. Scskowron (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of him before he showed up on this page. Having said that, any time you have a multi-billionaire associated with a university, it would seem to warrent inclusion in a short list like this. It is not a popularity contest, nor a test of recognizability, as I understand it. Without an accepted list of criteria, however, consensus seems to be the determining factor. I cannot agree with such absolutes as "he's completely out of place", either. It certainly merits at least a discussion, which it appears we are having. Therefore, I vote he stays. Shoreranger (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see from a visit to the article he has already been removed without any real discussion on the topic. I will just re-insert then if and until consensus demands otherwise. I will also place him in the List of Fordham University people, since his absence was noted earlier and has not yet been rectified. Shoreranger (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Shoreranger, but it has all the hallmarks of a vanity entry to me. (You're not a Russian billionaire by any chance, eh?) BTW, it would be nice if you applied your "consensus" criteria consistently, instead of unilaterally attempting a rewrite of the introductory paragraphs midway thru a discussion re same (above). Cheers. Cloonmore (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, I am neither Russian nor a billionaire - at least not yet! While your point is taken re: consistency, my intent was not to attempt anything as drastic as a "re-write" or the deletion of a whole idea, but to merely address what seemed to me specific and relatively easily addressed concerns in the article based on points brought up during discussion, which seem to me to be a major difference between an "edit" and a "re-write." This presumes, of course, that a series of pre-meditated edits with an agenda is not the reality, which would of course only have the effect of a piecemeal re-write. For my part, I have no such intent, and don't expect it of anyone else. Shoreranger (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

A significant part of the "Student Activities" section appears to be a cut-&-paste job from FU's copyrighted website. That would include much or all of the entries for the Choir, Dance Alliance, Theatre Company, Mimes & Mummers, Debate Society, Gannon Speech & Debate, Military Science and maybe more. That's a problem (and perhaps explains the lack of citations). Frankly, the section is way too long and wordy anyway and should be significantly pared back. I don't think that the entry for each activity merits more than a descriptive phrase or single sentence, as in the "Student Publications" section. Anyone with a compelling different view? Cloonmore (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the whole section titled "Fordham Maroon." Cloonmore (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree a lot of the activities need to be pared back. The Gannon Speech & Debate section has been removed and replaced many times over the past few months, partly because I'm not even sure the debate team is even very active anymore. The Fordham Maroon section should be rewritten but not necessarily cut down. Scskowron (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I too agree the activities section is just too large. Just as a little background, this section seemed to baloon once "Self-Expression" title was added and a sample of the theater opportunities at Fordham was noted. It appears that, after a while, *every* possible opportunity to be on stage was given its own paragraph. Either providing a sample of the many theater opportunities at Fordham or significantly condensing the existing - seemingly exhaustive - list should drastically improve things. Shoreranger (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Shoreranger, are you kidding?? You're the one who blatantly ballooned the "Self-Expression" section with obviously copyrighted material.Cloonmore (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The copyright issue is one that Wikipedia takes very seriously, and could and should lead to deletion of entire sections if indeed they have been copied. I'd have to go back and take a look. Even if the sections are footnoted and cited, that is not sufficient. The solution is simple: condense, reword and add footnotes. Scskowron is correct that the entire section on student activities is just too big.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the sections cited above, it appears that most of the "History" section up to 2001 was cut & pasted directly from here. Looks like blatant copyright infringement. Cloonmore (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you are finding these things. You know, someone can wander along and cut the entire paragraph or even delete the article because of this issue. I really don't have time today but I'd suggest that this be addressed on an urgent basis.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Argh, here is a word-for-word copy:

"In 1913 the decision was made to close the College of St. Francis Xavier (though leaving the associated Xavier High School intact), and Fordham began opening schools in Manhattan once again, then at the Woolworth Building in the Financial District (the tallest building in the world at the time). Due to the ornate lobby of this skyscraper, the students soon began referring to it as the "marble campus" of Fordham in contrast to the then rural nature of the Rose Hill campus. Various colleges flourished at the Woolworth Building over the years, including Fordham College–Manhattan Division, the College of Business Administration, and the Undergraduate School of Education. In the midst of World War II, Fordham moved its Manhattan schools to a new location a few blocks north of City Hall at 302 Broadway."

No point in quoting the website. It is identical.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Add the "Libraries" section to the plagiary list. I trace all but maybe one sentence as directly lifted from this page. Cloonmore (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph on the Campion Institute is copied directly from here. Is this whole article ripped off? Cloonmore (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

More of the same: the Fordham U. Press section is cut and pasted from here.Cloonmore (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Cloonmore, what is wrong with the citations that you removed? Since they are University news items, they appear to be rather effective to me. Scskowron (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Those links don't work. They just go to the main Fordham page.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fact" tags were added far too copiously to the problematic History section. I think an "unsourced section" tag is far more appropriate under the circumstances.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, my bad. Thx, Mantanmoreland.Cloonmore (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

STOP THE AMPUTATIONS, THE PATIENT IS DYING!!

Can we PLEASE stop hacking off whole sections of the article for lack of citation? I am completley sensitive to the copyright issues, but hacking off whole sections is not the answer, re-wrtiting and citing is. We have lost whole sections and very good segments of content for no good reason, and I am concerned that we will never get them back. Reference to Fordham at the Woolworth Building is completely gone, for example, apparantly for lack of citation. The information can easily be found in one or more of the reference books noted at the end of the article, and perhaps on the web as well. This is just an example. This stuff doesn't have to GO, it just has to be cited. Let's calm down a little here before we lose much else. I am away for work right now, and in the process of a move at home, so I won't have ready access to my reference books or the time to search the web for these cites, so can someone else start going back over the stuff that was hacked off and start citing it? Leave the "citations needed" if you can't find something, don't just chop it out. There was some really good, compelling, significant stuff in this article that would be a shame to lose forever. Thank you. Shoreranger (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Shoreranger, it's obvious that you haven't even bothered to read the discussion above under "Copyright problems" or you couldn't seriously be spouting such utter nonsense. How could the deletion of copyrighted text, which is readily & legally available elsewhere, cause it to be "lost forever"?? Anyway, you've got zero credibility on this issue, since you're a serial offender yourself. In fact, you're the one who created this whole problem by cutting-and-pasting copyrighted text in the first place -- here and here -- including the very text about the Woolworth Building that you now think should be re-inserted. Is this what you call being "completely sensitive" about copyrights? The patient isn't dying, although you almost killed it with all your blatant copyvio's. You'd made the patient a prime candidate for speedy deletion. Cloonmore (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not lack of citations. It is that text is copied verbatim from the Fordham website. It needs to be rewritten and then it can be placed back in the article. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten and replaced is the key, as Mantan has wisely said, and not removal of whole themes and facts from the article. The fear I am trying to express is not that the information will be completely lost forever from anywhere and everywhere, the fear is that no one will replace the information removed from this specific article - at least not for a long time. I won't take any bait on any accusations. I will, however, reiterate that am in complete agreement that copyrighted text be removed from the article. Shoreranger (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

More Copyright violations

Most of the "Rose Hill Gymnasium" section was lifted word-for-word from this page. Yet another "Shoreranger Special". I've deleted it -- don't have the time at the moment to try to re-source and rewrite it properly, but maybe someone else does. Cloonmore (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, I concur with the edit but no need to get personal.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

I suggest the paragraph places far too much emphasis of the "Jesuit-ness" of Fordham. As per Wikipedia:Lead section, particularly - but not exclusively, the section on "Relative emphasis" this paragraph should be trimmed down on the Jesuit coonection. Specifically, the membership in the AJCU is mentioned later in the article and can be removed here, and the mention on the Jesuit community is miscellany that does not have the relative importance to justify it in the first paragraph, or even in the introduction. The recently reverted edit refering to "no religious demands" on the faculty or students was inspired by language in other Wiki articles on schools with religious origins that no longer have any religious requirements. It seemed useful to counter-balance the repeated mentions of the Jesuits in the opening para. that appeared to provide the casual reader with a false impression on the contemporary religious aspect of Fordham. Shoreranger (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fordham's "Jesuit-ness", as you put it, is at the core of its existence and mission. The University places far greater emphasis on its Jesuit identity than this article and its lede currently reflect. FU prominently displays the tag, The Jesuit University of New York, throughout its website and in all its advertising. President McShane has called Fordham's "two greatest assets" its NYC location and "its identity as a Jesuit institution." The Board of Trustees adopted a "vision statement" in 2004 that opened, "Capitalizing on its Jesuit identity and its location in New York City, within seven years of completion of its strategic plan, Fordham University will return to a position of recognized national prominence in the world of American higher education. Once it has achieved this status, the University will pursue its ultimate long-range goal of reclaiming its position as the premier Catholic University in the United States." [15] Its Jesuit aspects are emphasized in the University's mission statement and in the "Jesuit Tradition" section of the website. Its AJCU membership is prominently advertised by the AJCU logo on FU's homepage. This article is currently out of step with the University's own self-image and the image it presents to the world at large. Cloonmore (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That response seems pretty contrary to Wikipedia:NPOVD, and includes heavy weight on how the university's promotional materials portray itself, and on predictions of things to come. An encyclopedic article does none of these things. The Jesuit connection is clearly stated, twice, in the lead paragraph, before drumming it in with the superfluous notation of the Jesuits in residence - many of which do not work for the university - and membership in a national association of colleges. Both of these latter facts are not significant enough to warrant mention in the lead paragraph, and one of which is already mentioned later. The second of the university's "two greatest assets" as reported in the above - its NYC location - recieves no where near this amount of attention in the lead paragraph. There already is a section in the article about Jesuit philosophy and its relationship to Fordham. If anyone feels it necessary to clarify or expand that section I heartily encourage it as the best place to reiterate/expand upon the Jesuit connection. The lead paragraph is currently overly emphasizing the Jesuit conncetion, even compared to other prominent "premier Catholic University" articles in Wiki. I suggest a review of Wikipedia:Lead section for further information indicating how this first section suffers. This issue is not resolved and appears to be poised to become a Wikipedia:Edit war, so I am tagging the article. Shoreranger (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOVD? heavy weight? "predictions of things to come"?? Give me a break. The only prediction of things to come I see is the self-fulfilling prophecy that "This issue ... appears to be poised to become a Wikipedia:Edit war". Only if that's what you're looking for, I suppose! Cloonmore (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that this appeared to becoming a Wikipedia:Edit war was drawn from the revert of my edits without benefit of discussion here. Much of what was eventually written in reponse to me here in this discussion was about Fordham's plans for the future, which prompted my suggestion that predictions are not proper in an encyclopedic entry. The issue at hand is whether the 4 mentions of the Jesuits in three sentences in the opening paragraph accurately portrays Fordham in an encyclopedic style to the casual reader, or if it is contrary to Wikipedia:Lead section, particularly - but not exclusively, the section on "Relative emphasis". I have suggested two places where this can be trimmed down, and would like to hear from other editors about that proposal. Shoreranger (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical Origin of "The Rose Hill Campus" of Fordham University.

According to the official website of Fordham University, The origin of "The Rose Hill Campus" was owned by Wealthy New York Merchant, Robert Watts Jr..

According to family geneological research from various sources, he was married to Mary Alexander, the daughter of Maj. General William "Lord Sterling" Alexander, and Sarah "Lady Sterling" Livingston-Alexander of American Revolutionary War fame.

Both the extended Alexander and Livingston families were directly and indirectly responsible in the founding and creation of a number of institutes of learning(ie: The Alexander Family, founders of "Kings College", today known as Columbia University).

My being raised in The Fordham Section of The Bronx across the street from The Rosehill Campus of Fordham University, I had visited the campus many times, and spoke to many a student and faculty staff... I am a descendant cousin to both "The Alexander and Livingston Families", by way of my grandmother, Constance Martha Alexander. During my late teenage years, I was a former member and research volunteer for The Bronx County Historical Society.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe Slept Here

It is noted that the famous writer and poet, Edgar Allan Poe lived in a small cottage with his spouse, Virginia Clemm-Poe, opposite "Rose Hill" in Old Fordham Village. It is also noted that Poe had visited Fordham University (then St. John's College) numerious times, for social and intellectual simulation, making good friends with some of the Jesuit staff. Poe's famous poem "The Bells" is based on his hearing the bells that rung at The Chapel at Fordham. One of these bells is named "Old Edgar", in respect to the master poet-writer. When his beloved Virginia, passed away from consumption in 1847, he was heartsick and at times had "The Lonelies". The Jesuits gave Poe welcome, and at times he was invited and slept on the campus till his untimely death in 1849.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion controversy

I noticed that Fordham University had been criticized by the Cardinal Newman Society for having honored a pro-choice Supreme Court judge. Anyways, Fordham is known to be fairly open-minded institution and has sometimes expressed dissent to official Vatican directives. [16] ADM (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gabelli School of Business

Shouldn't the Gabelli School of Business get an own wikipedia article? It's a Tier 1 B-School in the USA, and it has gotten a lot of attention recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.144.56 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fordham University traditions

It has been suggested that the article about Fordham University traditions be merged with the general Fordham article. I would like to keep the separate traditions article. First, I am planning on expanding the article to include more traditions. Once I complete this task, the article will be too long to simply be a section in the Fordham article. Second, Columbia University has a separate traditions article that is just about as long as the Fordham traditions article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samv315 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there are other such articles it is not necessary to have another; counter examples do also exist. An article is not a single-user contribution as well, and you do not own any article. It is necessary to rationalize the necessity of such big coverage for the tradition.

The tag shall remain until any consensus is achieved. --nafSadh did say 06:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first guy. Fordham has too many traditions to list on the regular article. I'll add to the traditions article too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrooks1991 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If so, then please feel free to contribute. Once, Fordham University traditions become large enough then remove the merge tag and also rewrite the section in this article to summarize in paragraphs with less headers. --nafSadh did say 03:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the articles are fine how they are, especially considering that they are going to get larger, there are other articles of comparable length, and Mbrooks1991 agrees with me. With what authority do you make these declarations, Nafsadh?

Tags are given on current condition and it do not consider future. For instance, if we think one article is going to become a GA in future, we do not tell it a good article now; we leave it for future.

You (Samv315) and Mbrooks1991 both are considering future (especially considering that they are going to get larger - not now, only considering future. Currently they overlap almost all context), i.e. after adding sufficient context Fordham University traditions will prove its need to have separate article. In current situation, according to WP:MERGE, Fordham University traditions is eligible to have this tag.

Please think about being nice while asking “With what authority do you make these declarations?”, nafSadh did make no declaration and commented with no authority other than inherent rights to opine. --nafSadh did say 10:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's just merge the two articles, Samv315. Then we won't have to listen to this joker anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrooks1991 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbrooks1991 is not being nice and using personal attack. So is being alerted in WQA --is nafSadh nosy? 06:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll take care of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samv315 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Alphahouse.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alphahouse.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rosehillgym3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rosehillgym3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bluechapel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bluechapel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Files nominated for speedy deletion

These buildings were under construction and therefore inaccessible until today. Will replace with free images within the hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samv315 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Assumption-hall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Assumption-hall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 29 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Admin 1930s.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Admin 1930s.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Lowenstein 1965.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lowenstein 1965.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Notable" section: Most notables should go in the article List of Fordham University people, not here

If anyone want's to add a notable, consider if they rise to the same caliber as Medal of Honor recipients, Directors of the CIA, or Hall of Fame inductees. If not, please add it to the List of Fordham University people instead. Shoreranger (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Research"

This section implicitly ignores vast amounts of research in the social sciences that has been produced from Fordham over the decades. Either that needs to be acknowledged, or the section should be rewritten to clearly indicate it is only covering the natural and physical sciences.Shoreranger (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fraternaties and sororities

This section is largely just impressions, opinions and undefined labels that are not well sourced and seems written to give a particular impression that is not born-out by any documentation. What is left can easily be included in other sections. Shoreranger (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Shoreranger, let me address the concerns you have with the section individually:

• "Like many Jesuit institutions": has been removed
• "Officially sanction": "officially" has been removed; "sanction" means "provide consent for;" appropriate diction in context
• The article citing the student houses is an editorial to The Ram. Editorials are cited frequently in academic publications; they are a perfectly legitimate source. Furthermore, The Ram is cited repeatedly throughout this article and provides probably the best perspective of what is happening within the University.
• "Several": exact number is unknown; I give examples, but there are most assuredly more.
• The Knights of Columbus is most certainly operated by the University as much as any other student organization on campus. I know because I am on the executive board of that organization. Citation at the end reflects.
• "Senior society" means "organization for senior students;" no further clarification needed.
• "Dean's cabinet": specifically mentioned in the citation at the end
• "Most involved" is qualified by "in terms of extracurricular activities."

Everything in this section is well cited and is stated in detail appropriate for an encyclopedic overview. Based on my reasoning above, I have reversed Shoreranger's edit and propose that the section remain intact as is. Surferdude09 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't concur, not the least of which is your characterization of the university "operating" the Knights of Columbus on campus. All organizations that involve students on campus are not "operated" by the university, some are local chapters of national organizations - such as the Pershing Rifles, the Knights of Columbus, Phi Beta Kappa, and many others. Mimes and Mummers, The Ram, Gaelic Society, etc. are "operated" by the university in the sense that they are authorized by the university, and would cease to exist without it. It's not the same. This is just an example, the whole section requires mediation. Shoreranger (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I will say that the Knights of Columbus as a whole is not operated by the University; it is, of course, operated by the national office in New Haven. The Jack Coffey Council of the Knights, however, is operated by the University because it is, as you yourself stated, "authorized by the University and would cease to exist without it." With regard to the other examples to which you refer, I would have to know what they are in order to reply to them in more detail than I have already. Surferdude09 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The overall request is a bit too vague to be responded to in full, as there needs to be a specific clear point of dispute that someone can provide an opinion on. However, I can provide some opinions about some of the concerns raised. First of all, the tags should not have been removed until the problems are fixed. Tags exist to encourage other editors to make improvements, and thus need to remain, especially when someone has made a good faith attempt to explain the problems on the talk page. Second, Shoreranger's idea that simply requiring university sanction means that the groups are operated by the university is, well, simply false, in ever way. If I own on a building, and a company rents space in it, does that mean the company is now operated by me? To "operate" means to run, manage, make decisions about, etc. Finally, if any editorial article is being cited anywhere here to support facts, it and the facts supported by it must immediately be removed, as editorial articles do not meet WP:RS except for the opinion offered. I'll put this page on my watchlist, but no promises that I'll get involved in detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. Shoeranger seems to be right about this issue of student-run organizations being "operated" by the university. It would be pretty rare and extraordinary for a U.S. college or university to actually operate a student organization; in fact, I'm hard pressed to think of any good examples because by definition a student organization is run by students and not the college or university. This is similar to other organizations that exist on campus and are sanctioned or supported by a college or university and even incorporated into its daily life and organization without being operated by the college or university e.g., faculty senate, faculty and employee unions, student newspaper, Greek letter organizations. Even though the college or university may provide support for these organizations with funding, resources, and guidance the organizations still run themselves and are not directly overseen or controlled by the college or university.

A useful example may be to compare a student newspaper with the monthly publication produced by a university's marketing and communication office. The university likely provides significant support for the student newspaper such as office space, funding, and a faculty advisor but the university doesn't operate it - the students on the newspaper staff operate it. Compare that to the monthly publication produced by the university employees in the marketing and communication office who are on the payroll of the university and answer to other university employees in a direct line of supervision running all the way up to the president and board of trustees.

So a claim that a student organization of any stripe is actually operated by a U.S. college or university is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Is such evidence provided in this instance? ElKevbo (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

On a minor note, the phrase "senior society" does need to be clarified in the article as the adjective "senior" is too vague as it could mean "a society only for students in their senior year" or simply "a more prestigious or exclusive group" or something similar. "Senior" simply has too many possible, potentially correct interpretations.

Surferdude, I respectfully suggest that you may be too close to this subject to always write about it in purely objective ways. I think it would be a good idea if you were to give the feedback of your colleagues here a little bit more weight. You should definitely review our conflict of interest guidelines; they provide good advice that could help you avoid controversy. ElKevbo (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry ElKevbo, perhaps I got the wrong person there, but I meant the same thing you did--that the organizations are not (absent evidence) "operated by the university". Ah yes, looking back "Surferdude" is the one who said that "The Jack Coffey Council of the Knights, however, is operated by the University because it is, as you yourself stated, "authorized by the University and would cease to exist without it."" Sorry about that. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the clarification! ElKevbo (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Should we include the President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III of the Philippines

http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/rsvp_aquino_80041.asp

Bonvallite (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If he doesn't have a Wikipedia article of his own, it is a good indication that he is not Wikipedia:Notable notable enough for a mention here. You might consider a mention at List of Fordham University people, but the same criteria would likely apply.

Shoreranger (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shoreranger. In addition, neither list contains any honorary degree recipients from the University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surferdude09 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Excessive

This article is...well...ridiculous. First, it's past the maximum desirable length for any Wikipedia article (80K, for accessibility reasons). Second, a large portion of it is WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. Clubs, newspapers, sororities, etc. should only be included if they have been discussed in an independent source. Anyone more familiar with the school want to start the cutting? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As the author of the majority of information in this article, I take personal offense to your comment. First, you can cite statistics all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this article is informative and well-cited according to academic peer-review standards. Furthermore, I can find countless examples of articles on Wikipedia that are considerably longer than this one; if you're going to cut this article, then you have to cut all the other ones as well. If it makes you feel better, I don't intend to add anything else to the article, but I will carefully scrutinize any attempts to cut what's already included. Surferdude09 (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended...but you're still wrong. For example, not a single item in "Performing arts" is verified by an independent source. Unless you can provide some evidence that someone outside of the university itself has taken notice of them, that whole section should be removed. That's just one section I chose randomly. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure from where you're drawing your content standards, but it seems clear to me that the Performing Arts section is interesting and informative and therefore should remain in the article. In any of the university articles on Wikipedia, the bulk of the information specific to the university is going to come from the university itself; that's just the nature of the subject. Surferdude09 (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The information is not and should not be drawn primarily from the university. I hate to just keep repeating myself, but there must be evidence that someone outside of the university cares. It's "interesting and informative" to you, because you're associated with the university in some way (student, faculty, alumni, I don't know or care which). It's not of general interest to someone seeking to learn about what "Fordham University" is. More importantly, including it without evidence that it's important is WP:UNDUE. I'm removing the section.

In all honesty, I'm trying to be generous here. I'm trying to give you, the editor interested in including WP:SCHOOLCRUFT, a chance to find outside sources, to do some of the trimming yourself. But if you're unwilling, I'll have to do it, and the only tool I have at my disposal is a hatchet. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me go further. You seem to be confused about the purpose of this page. This is an encyclopedia. It's not a secondary version of the college website. It's not a recruiting tool. It's not a chance to show off all of the features, facilities, and organizations at/of Fordham University. If someone wants to know everything about the university, that's what Google and the school's website is for. Our whole value is that we distill out that which is most important. The way we do that is by looking at how independent reliable sources have represented the school. In this case, you've provided no evidence that any of those performing arts troupes are of any interest to anyone outside of the school. Note that just finding a passing notice in a local paper of a performance won't be enough either. We need something that clearly says, "This particular group is particularly interesting because..." (maybe they toured the world, maybe they won a major competition, maybe they were involved in a major scandal). Absent that...this is the wrong place. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

First, have you looked at the school website recently? It is literally thousands and thousands of pages. This article is not even 1% of that. If that's not distilled, I don't know what is! Second, I looked at the guidelines for spotting Schoolcruft, and the only one that MIGHT fit me is the one about citing the school's website as a reliable source. But the vast majority of the important information about the school can only be found on its website! (academic descriptions, campus overviews, statistics, etc.) Based on the guidelines, citing the school's website is only a problem if the information from the site is clearly biased toward the school. The info that I cite is not biased, nor is the info that I directly include in the article. Third, it is impossible to determine what the majority of people think is important about the school, but I have creative license to discuss what I think is important, so long as I do it in an unbiased way. Take, for example, other encyclopedias (Britannica, WorldBook, etc). All of them have articles about particular subjects, but each article is unique. Why? Because they were written from a unique perspective by people emphasizing what they wanted to emphasize! Overall, your arguments hold no ground, and if you start chopping the heck out of this article, then I will fight back. Surferdude09 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If the information is only noted on the school's website, it is not notable enough for inclusion here. I don't understand what part of this you aren't understanding. And you're asserting some sort of right to "unique perspective", which fails to understand that Wikipedia articles are governed by consensus and policy. You don't get to say, "Oh, this is interesting, so we'll include it." Instead, we look at what policy says, and we look at what other editors say, and then we try to reach consensus that is consistent with that policy. You don't actually have what you call "creative license", as this isn't "your" article. Since at the moment the dispute is between 2 people, I'll ask for a WP:Third opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see the misunderstanding here: No, we don't rely on the personal opinions and preferences of individual editors to determine the content of articles. I hope you can understand how that would be problematic if we allowed every article to be written by people using their personal opinions and preferences! We have to rely on reliable sources to determine what is notable and important enough to include in articles. ElKevbo (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Dropping in to offer a third opinion as an uninvolved editor. The short version: I agree with Qwyrxian. The longer version: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A piece of information may be interesting and/or informative, but Wikipedia doesn't strive to include all the facts that may fit those criteria. Instead, we are restricted to what can be verified in reliable sources. Those sources don't all have to be independent of the subject; we are permitted to use self-published sources, but only within reason - you can't base large chunks of an article purely on information produced by the subject. My personal website might list all of the things I've ever eaten for breakfast, but a Wikipedia article about me would not and should not incorporate that level of extraneous detail.

Unless it can be demonstrated that sources outside the University have commented (ideally at some length) on the topics covered in the Student Activites section (I'm thinking specifically of the Performing Arts subtopic, but other sections there could also use trimming), Wikipedia's content policies would suggest that the information does not need to be included. A link to the university's website is provided in the infobox, and interested readers can follow it to find out more about the subject; but the article itself does not need to include this information. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

While I had been waiting to see if Surferdude would reply, he hasn't edited since before this comment was made. I'm pretty confident in my reading of WP policy, and Yunshui's 3O matches my reasoning closely. So I'm going to go ahead and re-remove that information; at some point, I'll turn my eye to the rest of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to come in and defend Surferdude09. I have looked at all of the protocols that you two have cited, and it seems clear that you are very narrowly interpreting them. The central question of this debate appears to be this: Can content from the Fordham website be considered a reliable source? I answer simply that the website is used by millions of people daily to gather information about the university. Based on that fact alone, it is probably the school's most reliable source. Looking at each citation individually, unless it can be proven that the information is clearly biased or otherwise problematic, the citation can be considered reliable. This analysis is in agreement with the WP:SELFPUB and WP:SCHOOLCRUFT protocols. Yunshui, why can't we, as you say, "base large chunks of an article purely on information produced by the subject" if the information is unbiased? Long story short, much more detailed analysis of Wikipedia protocols needs to be performed to substantiate that Surferdude09's material should be removed. Samv315 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah. It's not that the university's an unreliable source it's that we can't rely on the university or its students to accurately indicate the wider importance and interest of university topics. It seems obvious that to truly judge if others beyond the university believe a topic to be important that we have to rely on non-university publications and materials.

Another way to think about this is to ask: Is it essential that someone know about __ to understand the broader topic of this article? In this case, it seems like the answer is "no." ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

ElKevbo says it right here again. Returning to something Surferdude said above to illustrate further: Surferdude points out that this article is already much much shorter than the 1000s of pages on the school's website. But that takes the wrong approach. When we create a WP article, we don't look first to the subject's website and then try to get as much as possible out of that site. We always, in every case, look to secondary sources first. We only want to turn to the primary source for basic information (for a school, that would be things like enrollment/employment numbers, names of key faculty, etc.). Again, rather than trying to look into the microdetails of the policies (which I assure you would still support mine, Elkevbo, and Yunshui's interpretation), think about the broader idea behind the policy. We're writing an encyclopedia for a general audience that covers the most important aspects of that topic. How do we decide what's "most important"? We look to what independent, reliable sources have said (again, with exceptions for basic "necessary" info) about the subject. If we always keep that idea in mind, then we can make better decisions about article content. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Samv315 for your defense of my position. Qwyrxian, I have yet to see any solid evidence from you or anyone else in support of your position. After further examination, the Wikipedia protocols that you cite do not support your arguments; they make prescriptions that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. But I am quite tired of having this debate, so here's what we're going to do: I am going to revise the article in an attempt to remove some excessive information. It's not going to be as much as you want to remove, Qwyrxian, but I can assure you it'll be more than I want to remove. I feel that compromise is a fair way to resolve this issue. Surferdude09 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

am I the only one that thinks this proposal by Surfer does not address the issue, and could easily be interpreted as a blank check to arbitrarily remove Wikipedia:Stable quality content arbitrarily and capriciously, seemingly justified by silence by other editors? Shoreranger (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You do what you think Surferdude, but if you reintroduce trivia, I will revert you, and if you remove valid independently sourced content, I will likewise revert you. You can't just arbitrarily declare the policies/guidelines say something that they do not, especially when two extremely experienced editors are telling you otherwise. I'm more than willing to take this through whatever aspect of DR is necessary to get this article away from being a puff piece towards a reasonable, encyclopedic summary, because I am certain you are wrong. I'm not saying I'm going to remove everything, but except for core info (as I explained above), if you can't find independent sources, it's time for it to go. I won't be taking any more out for a few days, likely, but I'll come back to this eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Shoreranger, so you admit that the material I've added is Wikipedia:Stable quality content? Qwyrxian, experience doesn't mean anything if you learned wrong the first time. I'm making logical arguments with the support of the policies. I don't know which part of this you and your supporters are not understanding. Now I've tried to compromise, but you won't have any of it. You're really not being Wikipedia:Nice. It looks like an unstoppable force is about to hit an immovable object, because I too am going to revert any changes to the article that you make that I believe violate my editing rights. If you decide you'd like to compromise, then contact me. Otherwise, I am finished with this conversation. Surferdude09 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am making the opposite claim: Much stable content in this article is being removed or drastically altered by Surfer, reversing a lot of good work that has gone into this article. It was not perfect, but it was on an upward trajectory for quality that seems to be reversing, or in all reality has already been reversed. Your arguments don't have Wikipedia:Consensus, and your interpretation of policy is not universally accepted, either. This article is apparently going to require Wikipedia:Mediation. Shoreranger (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How is my content "unstable?" How is it not "good work?" How am I "reversing" the quality of the article? Why do I need Wikipedia:Consensus specifically for my arguments? These are all things that I have heard from neither you nor anyone else. Make an argument as to why the article should look a particular way, and then cite and interpret relevant Wikipedia policy to support your claim. All you've done up to this point is make claims and cite random protocols without interacting with the protocols themselves. Surferdude09 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And I have had to revert your changes, Surferdude/Sam. First, you may never remove tags without fixing the underlying problem. You are 100% wrong to say that people have to discuss tags before adding them; that is never the practice on Wikipedia. You can ask that they be discussed afterward, but there is no requirement for "approval" for tags. But those tags are self-evident. "Substantitve" and "particular" are weasel words, because they are vague and unclear, and designed to make something appear large without actually defining it. Is Fordham's work more or less "substantive" than other universities? Thus, they are weasel words. Similarly, any unsourced statement which is not obvious to an outside observer may be tagged with a citation needed tag.

Second, you may not re-add that disputed material. It is WP:UNDUE. You have not presented any evidence that that information is of any value to people from outside of the university--that it is of lasting encyclopedic importance. How can you do that? By finding independent sources. Later today I will start an RfC which will get further input from the community. In the meantime, keep it out. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, change that just a little bit. I'm going to leave the performing arts part in while the RfC is ongoing, as it will make the discussion easier. The maintenance tags, though, have to stay (removal of maintenance tags without fixing the problem is considered disruptive editing). Qwyrxian (talk)

I've started an RfC below; let's see what further uninvolved input says. If you want to discuss the tags, please start a new section (not a section in the rfc, as that's a separate question and Rfc's are required to focus on a specific topic)Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)