Talk:University of Dallas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:University of Dallas logo.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 11:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

how were my edits vandalism? They are correct. Please explain. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We've left notes on your talk page, which you continue to blank at various intervals. Check your contrib. history and the edit summaries for this article. seicer | talk | contribs 05:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

please expand and answer the question. My edits are correct. This page currently has errors on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 05:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Students are becoming increasingly worried that the University of Dallas' Catholic identity is slowly slipping away. Outrage among faculty, students, alumni, and parents continues. Belongs in a sensationalist newsmagazine, not an encyclopedia. Your other "additions" were merely lists of curriculums, which is in violation of WP:NOT. Stop mischaracterizing your own and other people's edits. JuJube (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is true. If you have the university calander it tells about the history which it is trying to keep. I dont see how this is in violation of the policy

GoneHH, you added 8 kilobytes of text, including some highly POV commentary and a BLP violation with the edit summary, "correcting small error section 3". This may not, strictly speaking, be vandalism, but it was not a good faith edit. CIreland (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Controversies Section

A NPOV tag has been placed on the Controversies section. The description of the events mentioned is suffering from bias. Please suggest rewrites here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.94.80 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Groundhog

[Could some students add text to the Groundhog section here? This looks like something written by the Student Life Office. Groundhogs Day is a PARTY and there is a lot more to the history of it than this suggests... Many of these "traditions" were instituted by the administration in VERY recent days... And what about UNDERGROUNDHOGS??? ... Or the controversy when the police cracked down on the event...Come on guys, this is supposed to be a real article, not an promotional piece written by the admissions / advancement office!!!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.226.83 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Material for possible integration

Here are some points that might add to the article if properly integrated. I removed them because they were part of a miscellaneous list.

• The undergraduate class of 2005 contained nine Fulbright Scholars
• UD has maintained a campus in Rome, Italy for over 35 years where a large majority of its undergraduate students attend for a semester. (Some infomation on this program exists, but more could be added.)
• UD alumni are represented in over 150 countries around the world
• One of the few Universities to offer a bachelor's degree in Political-philosophy and a Masters of Politics degree.
• Religious life is served by the Chapel of the Incarnation. Dedicated in 1985 the chapel, the now Church of the Incarnation serves as an on campus parish that ministers to staff, faculty, administration, students and residents of Irving and surrounding communities.
• The University of Dallas was one of three finalists (together with Baylor University and Southern Methodist University) for the site of the George W. Bush Presidential Library. The University of Dallas withdrew itself from consideration on January 22, 2007.
• The University is located on the highest point in Dallas County and has excellent views of the Dallas skyline and the countryside

-Twinkie eater91 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Supposed "contender" for presidential library

I think this subsection is not really newsworthy and detracts from material that is important to UD. This is highly perishable stuff and nobody will really care in a few years. The only people who remember today are a few faculty members at UD. Soon most students won't remember. Who were the contenders for the Reagan library? The Carter Library? Where is the Nixon Library or is there even one? The Johnson Library? The Fillmore Library? It is nonsensical. We can't even remember where or if various presidents have libraries. Nevermind who supposed "contenders" were. Articles should not be about what the topic strives for, but what they succeed at! UD has stuck out on lots of things that mercifully don't show up here. But why this failure alone has to be mentioned and not all the others? If articles only concentrated on failures of subjects, there would not be enough computer space to hold Wikipedia! Student7 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. Losing a bid for a presidential library, under ordinary circumstances, would hardly be something that a university would remember for long. However, given UD's unique status as a tiny, orthodox Catholic, liberal arts college, it is astounding that she would even receive consideration for the official library of the President of the United States. It may not mean much to the history of presidential libraries or the history of higher education in the U.S., but for the University of Dallas (the subject of this article)the bid was most historic. Not to mention this major event in an article specifically meant to contain information regarding UD's past, present, and future would be ridiculous. Wikipedia understands this fact and has thankfully ignored such protests in the name of accurate and honest reporting. There are many out there who held great disdain for the Bush library project at UD. Such people would like to eliminate the whole episode from our history. Unfortunately for them, wikipedia does not care about politics and would just prefer to report the facts. UD almost won the George W. Bush Presidential Library. It is now a part of our history. Get over it. Thank you Wikipedia!

I realize that I could have bid to build the C5 Galaxy for the US Government. I would not have won, however. Would this be "notable" for me? Seems a bit Quixotic somehow. A yawner even for UD in a couple of years. This is supposed to be classic stuff not media blurbs. News at 11 material. I'm sure people put a lot of work into this, but like attempts to win the state title in sports, not really notable unless you actually win. "Trying hard" is not a test of what goes into Wikipedia. Most athletes "try hard." That is mercifully not the criteria or Wikipedia would be even more jammed than it is with sports stuff. Student7 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy is way off. If you, as a private citizen, bid for the C5 Galaxy project and were named a finalist in the bidding process, then YES, that would be notable. Why? Because a private citizen would have proven competent enough to be considered competition for the likes of Boeing and Northrop-Grumman. Similarly, would you argue that the article for a particular championship (say, the Super Bowl) should ONLY mention the team that won, and never name the team that played them in the championship game? This isn't a matter of UD simply bidding for the project; it's a matter of UD actually being in the final round for a Presidential library. For a small liberal arts school, that is a pretty significant achievement. It needn't be mentioned in any other article, but the fact that a controversy surrounded the decision, together with the fact that a "Controversy" section already exists on the page, seems to indicate that this fact has both significance AND a place within THIS article. MolotovH (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

heh heh, Molotov, you are correct. There were a lot of people - uh, UD alumni - who were upset that UD made it into the final round on the Bush Library; they had definite differences of opinion with the former president, but I explained to them that UD had several things going for it that SMU did not: cheap and spacious land, great (and multiple) highway access, and a philosophy that shared a lot of similarities with the president (although on things like the death penalty and the Iraq War, the Catholic Church and the president had their distinct differences).

But really, this was something that Dr. Lazarus, president of UD at the time, could not afford to pass up. I think he did the right thing to pursue it, and I think that this is a legitimate thing to post on Wikipedia...after all, it's important in the history of UD, isn't it? And isn't UD what this article is about?

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that if editors cannot distinguish notability from non-notability, this cannot be a very good article. Losing, anywhere in Wikipedia, is not notable. The reason is not concealing it, but that so many people/groups try things that they don't get/win. Lockheed, for example, bids on many contracts that they do not get. If that becomes persistent, they will not survive as a company. They must win x% of all contracts they bid on. Schools that are heavily involved in "outside enterprises" understand this. No losing contracts appear in their articles. That is why they are readable. They focus on what they are good at, not what they are bad (or not so good) at.

If all articles focused on the "not so good" attempts at success, Wikipedia would not be readable. BTW, runner up for athletic state championship is not reportable either.Student7 (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmn, then the official website for Major League Baseball is foolish for listing both the winner and the loser in each World Series (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/postseason/mlb_ws.jsp?feature=recaps_index)? And the National Football League can't tell notable from non-notable when it lists the winners and losers of each Super Bowl (http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history)? In fact, if you think about it, we often can't determine the quality of the winner UNLESS we know who the loser was.

But this is really a distraction, because the point that Molotov made above is quite appropriate. To put it in a sports metaphor, even if you grant that the loser bears no notice (although the pros evidently disagree), in everyone's book, it would be extremely newsworthy if a college football somehow made it to the final rounds of the playoffs in the NFL. No one would have put UD in the same 'league' as the other finalists in the competition for the Bush Library. Indeed, even in the Dallas area, a majority of residents may not even know where UD is ("Duh, isn't that the school in Richardson?" "No, that's UTD!"). For the last 20(?) years, UD has been increasingly torn in the conflict between those who want the school to hew to a strict Roman Catholic message (even if it limits the school's exposure and drawing power) and those who want the school to be broader-based (philosophically speaking) as well as more self-sufficient. Monsignor Milam Joseph and Dr. Lazarus and others fought the good fight to broaden the school's base in order to provide financial security for the school without abandoning its devotion to Western Civilization. After all, any non-profit that doesn't make a profit is called "bankrupt". This attempt to get the Bush Library has to be seen in that light, because even if UD lost (and surely Dr. Lazarus had no illusions about UD's chances, given SMU's endowment and Laura Bush's connection to the school), UD would still be a 'winner' in the sense that it would open the eyes of some people to the possibility that there was a real school in Irving that could 'play with the big boys'.

Besides, not mentioning the Presidential Library bid because UD lost is sort of like not mentioning the Civil War when discussing any state from Virgina to Texas, don't ya think?

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies to Virginia...my mother-in-law (who lives in Alexandria) would be disappointed :-(

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The job of professional teams is to win games. History may be perceived in that light - who is coach, who is fired as coach. The job of the Confederate States was to ensure the freedom of the south to choose their way of life. History of the south can only be understood in view of that loss.

The function, I hope the function, of UD is to educate students. Bidding on presidential libraries is an interesting distraction. Indeed, if the President or one of the many chancellors were fired in view of trying to transact business outside of the main business of educating students, then it might be newsworthy. "The board felt that losing x, y, and z, distracted from the main goal of UD and a change was therefore in order."

There are universities with business arms. Losing bids is not in the main articles. Might be appropriate to present winning ones in the business articles where the business arm is that large (there are a few of those). But I doubt they present losing ones. Their job is to bid stuff. No big deal if they lose most. That is expected in a business organization. Student7 (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

UD, like all academic non-profits, has dual goals: (1) to achieve its mission of educating students, and (2) to make money. Non-profits MUST achieve both goals in equal measure. You can't achieve the mission if you're bankrupt, and if you make money but aren't achieving your mission, then you're no different than a for-profit company.

I know we've been going back and forth on this, but I simply have to disagree with your pronouncement that "[b]idding on presidential libraries is an interesting distraction." Because one of the two primary goals of an academic non-profit MUST be to make money and because UD is woefully underfunded compared to schools like SMU with whom it was competing for the library, UD has to develop strategies to attract more money, and getting a presidential library - or even becoming a finalist - was one of those strategies. Contributions flow to where other people are contributing, and in the same way, foundations give to schools with already large endowments. UD needed (and needs) to kickstart its image in order to jumpstart its fundraising.

Thus, placing this subject here in the UD article, is a valid inclusion. UD didn't get the presidential library, but the point we are making is that UD WON its desired goals simply by making the final threesome. As was noted above, UD didn't "just make a bid", in making the final three it was treated as an equal to schools with billion-dollar-plus endowments - THAT was the victory. As a former board member of several non-profits and as the former CEO of an international non-profit, I know exactly why Dr. Lazarus had to take this opportunity to bid on the library, and he achieved his goal of greatly improved name recognition in the circles that matter - wealthy donors...now his successor has to take the next step: raise awareness of the school even more and actually convert that awareness into money.

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit that does place it into a different light. Is that strategy in writing someplace? It might be worth a line. "Goal was to make it into the final three, a victory for UD as a small school" or somesuch.Student7 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2007/01/22/daily2.html?jst=b_ln_hl

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2570651&page=1

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/5290586.html

Yes, these are after the fact, but given that UD was the underdog (as one of the articles states), it seems pretty clear that achieving recognition in "parity" with SMU and Baylor was really Dr. Lazarus' goal...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, as an aside, SMU's endowment is over $1 billion; UD's endowment is something like $48 million...you see the reason UD wanted to be classed with the "big boys"?

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.udallas.edu/aboutus/about/history?init=1&return=http%3a%2f%2fwww.udallas.edu%2faboutus%2foffices%2fadvancement%2falumni%2fromereunion%2fsearchresults. It was introduced in this series of edits in January 2009. Infringing material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal as a name

I reverted a change in which the word "Cardinal" was taken out of the middle of the name of "Francis Cardinal Arinze". I don't know why this poster made a number of changes to a number of articles, in which he/she removed "Cardinal" from the name.

In English, referring to a cardinal as "Francis Cardinal Arinze" is the normal way to refer to them. See John Cardinal Foley John Henry Cardinal Newman John Henry Cardinal Newman John Cardinal O’Connor note this reference in Wikihow: Address letters to "His Eminence, First Name Cardinal Last Name." and there are many other examples too numerous to list from Catholic websites.

Before changing it back, I would appreciate hearing an explanation for the change...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is no longer the correct way to use Cardinal - no longer used as the "middle name." See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Cardinals. (long story:) this was copied from British and maybe Roman naming, "Gordon George Lord Byron," in some cases designating their house, which was never true for cardinals. Anyway, it was decided it was pretentious and is done no longer. It is also agrees with Wikipedia policy, no surprise. You will still see this done sometimes (incorrectly) in modern Asian and other prelates. Please correct it when you find it. Thanks.

Thanks for the note. Could you point me to someplace (preferably Catholic) that discusses this change? I looked at the Wikipedia link you gave, and while the standard was to say "Cardinal John Smith", it did not forbid "John Cardinal Smith" so long as the link worked. Thanks...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I got slammed on this early in my editing "career." Now I can't find it. Apparently not on my discussion pages but in some article. Unfortunately, like everything else, "Catholic" sources vary all over the place with some mentioning "Your Lordship" as acceptable! Just as you'd expect. I guess I don't read " ...those of the period before the introduction of surnames..." the same way you do. Yes, it does allow for the archaic usage. But why use it voluntarily now that it has been explained? Student7 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Careful, son, who you're calling "archaic" ;-) heh heh...when I grew up, it was still the normal usage ;-) but, then, so was Latin in the Church...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is proper to put 'Cardinal' between the Christian name and the surname. The person who says absurdly 'it is done no longer' should word-search the online 'Documenta Catholica Omnia'; he'll find e.g. dozens of letters by Pope John Paul II with titles like Epistola 'Fratri Nostro Iosepho Cardinali Schiffer' , Epistola 'Fratri Nostro Iacobo Roberto Cardinali Knox', Epistola 'Fratri Nostro Iosepho Cardinali Ratzinger'

Unfortunately you can find anything to justify nearly any opinion about any Catholic matter. Indian Christians go to extreme lengths in naming prelates, for example. Nevertheless, it is not stylistic on Wikipedia, nor is it the modern style, nor does it make sense. The old way was to indicate a "house." When that fell apart with the introduction of last names, the church dreamt up another reason for using it. But that makes little sense and modern usage, as well as Wikipedia, has jettisoned this old style. It is cutesy and pretentious IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Orpheion

What is the current relationship of the Orpheion to the university? - Bevo (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations Needed

This article has a large number of places where citations are needed, not just in places where I have marked, but where others have marked as well. I know that UD personnel occasionally update this article, and I encourage them to do the research (as a good liberal arts school should know how) and clean up all the missing citations here! (from a two-time UD alum)...
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote on standing from article

Not sure why Dallas has this article, but the ref is http://www.udallas.edu/!virtualroot!/Resources/132/APSApoltheorysurvey.pdf

The ref states that this is "Rank ordering of political science PhD programs by the quality of political theory training they offer" unquote. PhD not graduate. The rank of Dallas is "36" on "271". Not sure what the 271 refers to. This is the only "Dallas" in the entire article.

What article are you looking at? And on what page?

Note that guidelines state "Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article — not simply an introduction." Emphasis mine. It seems to me that this ranking is a bit WP:UNDUE in the lead. Student7 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Dallas based reference has either misread the newsletter or is referring to an earlier edition which had different rankings. Anyway, local newsletters are not WP:RELY] for quotes of this nature. Student7 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor is either unaware of discussion pages or refuses to discuss. Don't know which. Student7 (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how one can defend the ranking any more than asking for the official list to be looked at closely. If one is to look at the list, he will see that the university is tied at 28th. Again, there is not much of a discussion or debate here: we are both looking at the same document. Additionally, the university press release confirms that UD was placed at 28th. Although you have seen the release as conflicting with the actual survey data, it most certainly is not: it is echoing what I have been arguing, hence why I linked it, something I had not done originally. This is really a no-debate issue. Please take another look at the data; it confirms what I have been saying and what the university's press release says. 97.77.103.82(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Forget the summary by Dallas. That is off the table. We need the original here.

On the one I am looking at Brown is at 28. There is no "tie" with any other school with either Brown nor Dallas.

When you select the footnote and search for "Dallas", what do you see? What is the first thing you notice? Student7 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If the original document is agreed-upon, indeed, the second source is not needed. The second was used to help clarify the information presented in the study as an edit war was occurring (I now understand that you were not trying to deface the page. Another look at the data shows that the way the data are presented is very confusing.)

I think I understand now, the reason why you have been ranking UD at 36th. The numbers in the left-hand column are "Weighted Votes" - not a ranking. There actually is no numbered ranking next to the schools listed; one has to count down, that is how both myself and the university (in its press release) arrived at 28th. Again, the 36 number is the votes it received, not its numbered ranking.

Okay, so now you've count down. But UD is actually listed 29th, you will say. UD's weighted votes (36 votes) tie it with UPenn, hence UD and UPenn are tied at 28th.

I would say that the chart is is highly misleading, as one sees these numbers to the left and reckons that it is actually its ranked number.

Please let me know if you now see this information. CAtruthwatcher (talk)11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I was reading it too quickly. I've changed my mind, you really do need the second article interpreting the score which I read too quickly. (Glad we figured that out. Whew!). Student7 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Wilhemsen

The reason I put in that footnote about

"Although most students knew of Dr. Wilhelmsen as a teacher of Philosophy, it is clear from Fr. James Lehrberger (who knew Dr. Wilhelmsen at UD) in his in memoriam that Dr. Wilhelmsen's formal title included both Philosophy and Politics. In addition, see the article at [8] written by Dr. Wilhelmsen in which he was described: "Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Ph.D.... has been Professor of Philosophy and Politics at the University of Dallas for thirty years.""

was because previous editors had put in that his title Philosophy only...but it was both Philosophy and Politics...I got tired of pointing out the correct title and having it changed, so I inserted the footnote to explain it...note that I took "MetaFritz" (Metaphysics) from Fritz Wilhemsen, so I am not unacquainted with him, but since James Lehrburger actually published something with his title, I decided to use that...
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this information not in Wilhelmsen's bio? Did editors there not allow it? This article on Dallas is not the place for "enhanced" biographies of either students, alumni, nor faculty. The place for that is in their biographies. Interested readers can go there for "further information." Student7 (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the article for three days. I expect you to work out your problems on this Talk page during that time. At the end of three days, the protection will automatically expire. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Decisions

Please note the Wikipedia template messages for the section "Controversial Decisions."

"This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the material in the section into the article as a whole, or rewrite the contents of the section. Please see the discussion on the talk page." (September 2011)

"This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective." (September 2011)

Would those contributors who wrote this section kindly edit the material so that is is: (1) written from a neutral point-of-view, (2) integrated into the article as a whole, and (3) kept in historical perspective? The sheer length of the "Controversial Decisions" section compared to the rest of the article, along with its language and writing-style, stands-out, making it look like an attack against the University by a group of disaffected alumni and students.

Thank you for your help in the matter. Crusader2011 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is a collective project, so if editors see parts they think need to be improved--the sourcing, the style, or for NPOV--they should be willing to step up to the plate also. Let's not make the error of assigning "ownership" of different parts of the article to different editors.

As for issues of neutrality themselves, the editor User:Crusader2011 has made hundreds of edits to the page since mid-September--their username and the content/style of edits, as well as access to catalogue of sources, makes it pretty clear they're employed by the university, so be careful about throwing stones. Cheers! Soonersfan168 (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the history of edits to the "Controversial decisions" section, numerous contributors have tried to make edits; however, they always have been reverted back. Hence, people have stepped-up to the plate. I invited those who have deleted the changes to rewrite the section so that it follows Wikipedia guidelines. No on else can do this if others continuously erase those changes. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I in no way meant to throw stones. It was an attempt to make this article more encyclopedic and fair. The article shouldn't be a marketing-tool or, on the other hand, a tabloid. Thanks. Crusader2011 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If any section of this article has been appropriately sourced, it is the "Controversial Decisions" section. However, I will take another look and see if we can't continue to improve upon other editor's work. Does anyone have suggestions other than deleting the entire section?--Defensor1956 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are back to this conversation. I believe the point is NOT whether or not the article is "properly sourced" (it is) - the point is whether or not the ENTIRE section is appropriate for a Wiki article. Obviously many editors think not. I agree for several reasons, not least of which the constant back-and-forth edit wars demonstrate the huge POV/neutrality issues dealing with recent material that is more appropriately fought over in some university related blog than in an *encyclopedia* article. By the way, this is exactly the reason that none of the other Wiki articles about Catholic colleges and universities in texas have such a section. If authors want to write about the daily political and religious ebb-and-flow of the university, they should do so, just NOT in this particular forum. Andrewincowtown (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Many, many Wiki articles of U.S. colleges and universities contain standalone controversy sections. See the Wiki articles for the U.S. Air Force Academy, Belmont Abbey College, Catholic University of America, University of California, Santa Barbara, the U.S. Naval Academy, George Washington University, St. Vincent College, St. Louis University, Spring Hill College, DePaul University, and Ave Maria University...to name a few that showed up after a very cursory review. From large secular universities to small Catholic colleges, a "Controversies" section seems to be a perfectly acceptable wiki section, at least to many editors, myself included. So the claim that a "Controversies" section has no place on a university wiki is simply unfounded.

In addition to many university articles featuring a standalone "Controversies" section, many opt to incorporate recent controversial events (yes, the ebb and flow, wikipedia is meant to be dynamic) into their histories section. These sections also feature "wiki wars" since that is the nature of a controversy. Wikipedia editors should not shy away from documenting controversial decisions just because they are controversial and might cause a wiki war. Some might argue that such debates are healthy, and help create a better product. Such was the case with the University of Dallas article. There was much back and forth over the School of Ministry debacle, with articles being deleted, verbiage being modified, links being replaced, etc. And the end result was a relatively unbiased piece of literature that satisfied editors to the point where the wiki war ended.

The question of whether or not a "Controversies" section belongs in this wiki has, to my mind, already been answered. I stand with the editors of the myriad universities I cited above, who also chose to incorporate such a section in their articles. The more important question is WHAT events should be included in a Controversies section. The section is starting to get too big, in my opinion. Therefore I suggest that some standards be implemented. If a controversial event at the University of Dallas became so controversial that news of the situation left the confines of campus and garnered media attention, then I think that event should be included. This is a relatively easy process, since citations of national media outlets will prove whether a controversy grew large enough to be of historical importance. The IRPS Debacle, the Guadalupe Scandal (front page Dallas Morning News), and the SOM Pastoral Ministry Major, these merited major media attention (the latter garnered local TV spots and news reporting from several national outlets). The Cancellation of the School of Pharmacy and the recently added bit about Sexual Perversity in Chicago, these should be omitted. Their citations rely chiefly upon the campus newspaper, The University News. This does not, to my mind, validate the event as a major controversy of historical import.

Thoughts?Defensor1956 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrewincowtown asserts "By the way, this is exactly the reason that none of the other Wiki articles about Catholic colleges and universities in texas have such a section. If authors want to write about the daily political and religious ebb-and-flow of the university, they should do so, just NOT in this particular forum." Does he have anything else he wishes to assert without argument or evidence? We should get all the sweeping generalizations out here at the beginning so they can be knocked down with the least amount of time wasted. Pax!Soonersfan168 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Controversies section has recently become too large. The recent posting of the Sexual Perversity in Chicago incident is a non-issue and only makes the University looks petty. Such things belong in blogs and personal websites, but not wikipedia as Andrewincowtown correctly asserts. Defensor1956 is wrong to claim that media attention alone makes an event of historical significance. What makes a controversial incident an event of encylcopedic worth is far more arbitrary than that. It's what we, the editors, decide is historically significant. His obstinacy notwithstanding, Defensor1956 makes a compelling point that Controversies sections are not foreign to wiki aticles about universities. Therefore, this section cannot be deleted on that basis.Crusader2012 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Here, here! Soonersfan168 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Though you should watch it with "obstinate" following a string of clauses so logically tenuous as in your posting, dear Crusader2012 Soonersfan168 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To all concerned, I would like to make the following points about the issue of the “Controversial Decisions” section that I, and others, have repeated removed from the article about the University of Dallas.

Another “Edit War” began at the end of March [05:32, 28 March 2012‎ 174.252.242.170(talk)], with the blanking of the “Controversial Decisions” section, and went back and forth throughout April. At the end of April, I wrote an entry on the TALK page defending the blanking, and offered two reasons:

1) the ENTIRE section is not “appropriate for a Wiki article” given our guidelines, and

2) this PARTICULAR section (for UD) was hopelessly mired in “huge POV/neutrality issues.”

In response, [ Defensor1956 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)] listed twelve (12) colleges that have such sections in their respective articles. I am sure he could have listed many more to bolster his point that: “Many, many Wiki articles of U.S. colleges and universities contain standalone controversy sections.”

Yes, and I can list a dozen that do not – in fact two dozen, after that many more dozens, and in fact, even hundreds that do not contain this section. There are a total of 4,495 Title IV-eligible, degree-granting institutions of higher education in this country, and thanks to the genius of Wikipedia, they almost all have a Wiki page! If anyone would like to do the headcount of each one to determine the exact percentage of ones that deviate from the *Wikipedia Guidelines* on this subject, be my guest. That misses the point. What I did was to compare the University of Dallas to a similar group (the other “Catholic colleges and universities in Texas”), about whether such a deviation (i.e. an exception to the rule) was for some reason customary and reasonable given similarly situated institutions (a practice recommended by the guidelines).

However, my comment on the TALK page was an attempt – given the ongoing Edit War - to explain the reasons behind the actual POLICY of Wikipedia… because there is one.

There are written Wikipedia Guidelines for the structure of articles about colleges and universities, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Example_articles

In general, “This set of college and university article guidelines is intended to apply to all college and university articles (and some related articles).” In particular, to this issue of the “Controversial Decisions” section, I will only cite a small, relevant portion here: “Article structure. The basic structure of a college or university article should follow the general format below. Sections may be expanded, customized, or moved depending on need and type of institution. It may help to take a look at some of our example articles before you start and/or edit your own.”

A) Upon review, you will note that the “general format” does not include a “Controversial Decisions” section; and

B) Upon review, you will note that they currently list twenty-one (21) model “Feature Articles” as exemplars – and not one has a “Controversial Decisions” section.

Example articles [edit] Featured articles • University of California, Riverside • Dartmouth College • Duke University • Fightin' Texas Aggie Band • Florida Atlantic University • Georgetown University • The Green (Dartmouth College) • Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering • History of Michigan State University • History of Texas A&M University • Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) • Michigan State University • University of Michigan • Ohio Wesleyan University • Oriel College, Oxford • Shimer College • Tech Tower • Texas A&M University • Texas Tech University • Tuck School of Business • United States Military Academy

Thus, as per the guidelines, there is a presumption that you would follow the standard “general format.” However, this is not a conclusive presumption – it could still be overcome with a substantial reason for doing so (and therefore include the section). Defensor1956 states that: “I stand with the editors of the myriad universities I cited above, who also chose to incorporate such a section in their articles” (i.e. the editors that have a reason to incorporate an exception to the guidelines).

But why? Why does the article on the University of Dallas need an exception to the standard, accepted guidelines. The burden is on Defensor1956 to rebut the “general format” in this particular case, and saying simply that others have violated the guidelines in their articles is, in my view, not sufficient.

The second of my two points picks up on this issue of why there should or should not be an exception made to the guidelines for this particular section (“Controversial Decisions”) for this particular university (the University of Dallas).

Even if there are reasonable justifications for deviating from the normal format for another university, the fact of the matter here is that this Edit War is hopelessly mired in “huge POV/neutrality issues.”

In an ideal world, we might all be able to work out some reasonable compromise, and construct some neutral language that might work in a section like this for the University of Dallas. In fact, I applaud the effort of the editor who, today, spent A LOT of time to rework the section on the School of Ministry in just such an effort. (20:21, 26 April 2012‎ 50.33.182.239(talk)‎ Thank you.

I want to also thank Crusader2012 for his efforts to encourage reasonable conversation and for your continuing efforts to find the right balance for the page. (18:30, 25 April 2012‎ Crusader2012(talk | contribs)‎ Thank you.

However, I have to side with the most recent version, which blanks the entire “Controversial Decisions” section [as per the Wikipedia Guidelines outlined above] and incorporates the controversial material into the main body of work. I believe that when you [Crusader2012] read through it all, you will find it to be a reasonable balance. Perhaps not exactly as you would write it alone, but acceptable as the joint project that is a Wiki article.

Sadly, I believe that this latest version will make everyone happy… except one. I may be wrong about that – in fact, I hope I am wrong about that – but time will tell. I and others are now waiting for the other shoe to drop. Andrewincowtown (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the unique nature of the University of Dallas as an orthodox, Catholic institution, I dare to say that the controversies that afflict our school are rather special struggles that one would not find at other schools. I mean, what other Catholic school would have students with the courage to remove an image that desecrates of the Mother of God (I would hope many actually). One can't buy publicity like that! Regardless of whether one is repelled, or enthralled, by such behavior, the point is that our school has some particularly interesting controversies that speak to the nature of our school. Trying to write them out of our history would be a grave disservice to the public, as they would be presented with an incomplete story.

All that said, I see nothing wrong with incoporating character-defining controversies into the main article. Like I said before, a multitude of university wiki articles do not shy away from presenting controversies, both old and recent, in standalone sections as well as in the main article. As the article current stands, the controversies are described in sufficient encyclopedic detail (with a few minor edits).

I would remind Andrewincowtown that incorporating the material into the main body of the article was not his idea. If his original changes had been allowed to stand, the entire section would have been omitted with none of the material incoporated into the main body. I thank whoever made those edits for not censoring these events out of UD's history.Defensor1956 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We are making progress! I think we need still need to fix the SoM controversy section. The section doesn't give any specific information about what the controversy was about, other than that a controversy existed. I feel that the previous editor may have, for a lack of a better term, "castrated" this article too much. Maybe we can put some specifics back in, such as the questions regarding homosexuality versus Catholic teaching, and using texts by notable dissenting Catholics. I feel that this would provide better information to users. The section, as it stands, is a bit too vague. But I won't do anything until I hear back from some of you.Crusader2012 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Crusader2012, you asked to “hear back” from some of the community, and I wanted to respond to that invitation: Yes, I agree that (1) we “are making progress” and that (2) we “still need to fix the SoM controversy section.” Thank you for your continuing efforts. Andrewincowtown (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

COI

Haven't had time to take a full look at this article, but it's pretty clear there's a COI issue. Soonersfan168 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I edited this article because it wasn't written from a neutral point of view; in fact, there were barely any citations. I have tried to be as neutral and as fair, as possible. If you read the entire article, I hope that you'll see this--everything is not rosy. There are some sections that remain from previous editors that need citations. Whenever possible, I have used third-source citations. So, I invite further scrutiny and edits, especially if I am mistaken. If the material is above board, I ask for the COI to be removed. Thank you. Crusader2011 (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit War over School of Ministry and other sundry items of UD's History

So, here we are. What seems to be the problem with the article as it is currently written? I do believe that verifiable citations have been provided, per Wikipedia policies. If certain verbiage is not neutral enough for you, let's discuss so that we can arrive at a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defensor1956 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield

Can someone add to the article the time she studied at the university, from which year to which year? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Core Curriculum

I returneded to the phrase "The centerpiece of undergraduate education is the Core Curriculum..." because it describes the part in relation to the whole. This need not be construed as boosterism; note that it does not claim "UD education is superior because..." Indeed, many students are turned off by an extensive set of required courses (see the section of the Curriculum article on core curricula for a larger discussion). The extent to which core curricula - of various forms - are widespread, or not, does not have a direct bearing on the facts that (a) Dallas has one and (b) it is rather large and strict. (One would not, after all, omit to mention that a school granted undergraduate degrees merely because this is a common practice.) 192.12.210.20 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the wording. "Centerpiece" is a public relations word here, not npov. It sounds like it's out of the catalog. We're just chronicling what the university does, not promoting it. This promotes it. Once that word is removed, the sentence kind of falls apart. In other words, there appears to be no need for the lead-in sentence at all.

I work on a number of schools and Catholic colleges. Compared to them, it sounds like boosterism. The problem with boosterism generally, is that it sounds desperate in an encyclopedia. "We have to 'push' the school, because it is unable to stand on it's own merits." I hope this is not true. Student7 (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As a physics graduate (class of 1987), I have to say that the core curricula were...well, emphasized over and over as core of teaching, and essentially cross-referenced in other courses. It wasn't dumbed down if you were in another major or an athlete (well, okay, "athlete" might be a bit much, but our team was smart! :) ), it was stressed over and over in each semester, and it was required. I was in a "hard" science (hi, Dr. Olenick!), and I was still expected to be conversant in philosophy, English Lit, art - well, you get the idea. If it is boosterism, it is boosterism that was pushed by the professors in *all* of the classes, not just the core.

Though to be fair, they didn't slack off in the hard sciences, either, and my core classes actually helped my grade in the end. (Just an observation from a former UD student who attended his 25th anniversary a couple of years ago).

As a final note, even though the text says "nondescript buildings (citation needed)" -- seriously, they were nondescript. Cinderblock and taupe in the shape of a block. If you take Frank Gehry and calculate the exact opposite, that is what Theresa Hall (my dorm) looked like, but most of the others were similar until a few years ago.

(Note, I've tried to cut out any boosterism.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.238.13 (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120401000906/http://www.hillsdale.edu:80/academics/display_profile.asp?cid=858995222 to http://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/display_profile.asp?cid=858995222

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150131032738/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings-2014/masters-universities-rank-all.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings-2014/masters-universities-rank-all.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Unlisted rankings

It doesn't makes sense to list "unlisted" rankings in the Ranking section. I've removed them, but if it needs further discussion, let's talk about it here. --Iamozy (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

More neutral language & editing needed

I came to this page for information and not to offer suggestions, but it's clear that there are editorial problems throughout, especially pertaining to NPOV. Example: the first sentence under "Academics" reads:

"There is no more important element in the unique experience that is a UD education than the unusual kind of core curriculum required of all undergraduates."

This reads to me like patchwriting using a college brochure as a source. --Hermagoras (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

History section, Next to last paragraph, contains factually inaccurate information and/or interpretation/opinion that is not supported by the referenced material and is intentionally slanted/negative without any independent support. Paragraph 9, last 2 sentences should be deleted:

"his hiring marked a surprising turn as it came after two failed national searches where the search committee chose finalists who were either greatly opposed by the university faculty or who were rejected by President Keefe. Frustrated Trustees intervened and pressured President Keefe to elevate the very popular Sanford despite the fact that he had been rejected by the second search committee.[35]"

Neither of these statements are supported by the referenced article; the second is patently inaccurate: https://udallas.edu/news/2018/university-of-dallas-names-new-provost.

Csmithsouth (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the material isn't supported by the cited source. I wouldn't expect the university's own public relations vehicles to report this information but a quick search doesn't turn up any other sources that reported on this. On that basis, I've removed the material. I also removed the rest of the paragraph because it seemed that the controversy was the entire basis for mentioning this hire so I removed the rest of the paragraph, too. Thanks for pointing this out! ElKevbo (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated trademark in right sidebar needed per new usage guidelines

The logo at the bottom of the right sidebar should be updated to reflect the university's revised logo usage guidelines: "We primarily will use the University of Dallas wordmark for external marketing, advertising and promotion. This should be the ‘go-to’ trademark for most purposes...[and] We will refrain from creating any new material or items with the “tower and flame” logo. When reproducing items that currently use this trademark, we will replace it with the wordmark alone whenever possible and/or use the UD seal where necessary and appropriate."

I tried to upload the correct wordmark logo for use here, but couldn't get it to work. Csmithsouth (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References

The file still needs to be uploaded before it can be added to the article. Try using Wikimedia Commons' upload wizard to upload the wordmark alone, and advise here with the file's name when that upload is successful. If the upload is unsuccessful, please note whichever error message the system delivers to you. When ready to proceed, please change the request template's answer parameter to read from ans=yes to ans=no Regards,  spintendo  17:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Concerned with the page's validity

Hello all,

I wanted to post and express my concerns about the validity of the data on the UD page. Many edits have been made by staff members at the University of Dallas. Looking through the edit history, I can see the staff have removed edits that they did not approve of, and this could be considered a violation of Wikipedia's page. What do you guys think?

Weston1321 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The lede, and the (inappropriately capitalized) "Core curriculum..." section, are absolutely inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia written by non-conflicted contributors. They are non-neutral in the sense that they WP:PEACOCK-ishly praise the academic perspicacity of college administration, and it is unlikely to me that truly unconflicted writers would have written something so flagrantly afoul of neutral-point-of-view guidelines. The jargon and overuse of buzzwords all need to go away as well. I don't have time to do this in one fell swoop and so I am tagging to alert other editors to the issue who may feel like wrestling with it while I am engaged in real-world life. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What suggestions would you make to the page? I am happy to do it as I am currently stuck in bed as I recover from a sickness. I was reading this page out of boredom and I also noticed a number of... stretched truths that a neutral editor would not have made. Weston1321 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the tag after making quite a few changes and deleting sections with NPOV issues. There is also now fair coverage of the gender disputes, listing praise and critique. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)