Talk:University of Southern California/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

USC's student politics

The comment that Bobak seeks to have included in the article about USC and the "notoriously corrupt" nature of the student politics is not supported by the source cited. First, the comment that serves as the source is about a single individual, not the student politics, in general, so a general comment about the nature of student politics is inappropriate. Secondly, the cited source does not make the assertion that the acts were corrupt, so applying that nomer to the statement represents opinion. I have reverted the edits until they can be properly cited or sourced. Anyone disagree? Let's discuss. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote reads: "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt;[71] the corruption and problems were notable enough that they appeared in the screenplay for All the President's Men.[f]" Now looking at the sources, from the DT article we garner:

• The two parties, Trojans for Responsible Government and Theta Nu Epsilon, used bitter tactics in their constant struggles to gain control of the Student Senate..." --this addresses multiple people and groups.
• "Future Nixon aide Dwight Chapin served as chairman of TRG, the more conservative of the two groups in the early part of the decade. Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." --this addresses only one person, yet, but article doesn't imply he was the only; rather, take this into account with the following passages:
• ""In order to win, the Trojans engaged in a wide variety of undergraduate pranks," reported a 1973 Chicago Sun-Times article profiling Chapin. "They infiltrated their rivals' campaigns. They tore down the posters of rival candidates. They stole their leaflets and produced others that were fake."" --we see the plural used throughout this description, in addition:
• "TRG, however, was formed in response to TNE, which was shrouded in an equally mysterious cloud. This organization, which was comprised of many members of smaller fraternities, "was so secret that most members of the houses represented did not know which of their fraternity brothers were involved," reported a 1974 Daily Trojan article that detailed the USC days of several Watergate participants, including Chapin. "It was a nationwide society, that was so feared and hated that it was banned on most campuses and met secretly, supposedly in dark halls and presided over by a grand klaggon..."". --so again, we are talking about two groups and thus more than one person.

However, it gets better with the screenplay:

• "At USC, you had a word the this--screwing up the opposition you all did it at college and called it ratfucking." --This line isn't about what one person said or did, its about the culture of the student government at the time; in fact, to land in the screenplay such an occurrence must have been a part of the general knowledge of the time.

In addition to involving more than a single individual, the tactics above fit the definition of corrupt. For those reasons I disagree with your assertion that my edits are not supported by the source you cite. First, the comment that serves as the source is about a single individual, not the student politics, in general, so a general comment is inappropriate. Secondly, the cited source does not make the assertion that the acts were corrupt, so applying that nomer to the statement represents opinion. As such I will revert back to them if they are changed; this is not about whitewashing what is otherwise an exceptional reputation of an era (now historic) student government. --Bobak (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobak, thanks for your response. My thoughts are that all of this is interesting background information, but largely constitutes original research, which as you know, is against Wikipedia’s policies. Nowhere in the article you cite does the quote "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt" appear. Nowhere in the article you cite does the word "corrupt" appear. In fact, nowhere in the article you cite does a word commonly associated with "corrupt" appear, save the following sentence (which refers solely to the actions of one individual): "Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal [emphasis added] plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." So, in order for one to draw the conclusion that the entire organization was (is) corrupt, one must form an opinion, which as you also know, is against the spirit of Wikipedia, if not also against Wikipedia's policies.

The options are, as I see them, to have the article solely reference the acts of the single individual involved (i.e., Chapin) in support of his [emphasis added] corruption, or find another source that supports the corruption of the whole. The words inside the four corners of the source you cite simply do not support that "student politics ... (have) been notoriously corrupt." Was one individual corrupt? I suppose so, if you associate the term "illegal" with "corruption"; safely so IMO. But, not to the whole. It fails a basic test of logic.

Also, the definition of corruption is interesting, but again, each reader of the article is left to determine whether they think the actions amount to corruption. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic journal, not a forum for opinion. Remember, no original research and no unverified claims. The claim that student politics at USC are corrupt is not verified. How could it be? It never appears in the article you cite. And, the bit about the movie is a red herring, plain and simple. Newguy34 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't original research because I'm not making it up myself, I'm citing to a news source and a script written 30 years ago that mention things that were corrupt in those organizations. The articles, as clearly pointed out above, do not assert that only one individual was corrupt, rather both organizations. Do not accuse me of original research and unverified claims when I have provide cites for the information. --Bobak (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Bobak's clearly cited reference, because after a long series of arguments Newguy has completely failed to make his case against this widely-known, well-documented statement of fact. Calling it "original research" strikes me as a bizarre misreading of WP:OR. I don't care how much you may love USC, Newguy; facts are facts. I would advise Bobak, though, to go to the library and get a few more cites to add to what's already here; it won't be hard, in any biography of Nixon's ex-USC aides, to find a number of references. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what is comical is that both Bobak and Orangemike are unable to point anyone to the referenced source that discusses and asserts that the student government at USC is or was corrupt. Show me the words "corrupt" in the source you cite. Show me the statement from an independent, verifiable source that asserts such in writing (not your reading and slanted digestion of what was written). You can't, and I know you can't because it does not exist; there is no writing to that effect. You have taken what is written about an individual or group, and projected it onto the entire popultation. That, in and of itself, is a bizarre twisty of logic that would certainly earn a failing grade in LOGIC 101.

To Orangemike, please direct me to the sources that comprise this "widely-known" and "well documented" fact. One cite does not a "widely known" fact make. The fact that Orangemike asked Bobak to go get additional cites reflects that the cites provided are not sufficiently compelling (in Orangemike's apparent opinion), an assertion with which I agree. This statement re: corruption is plain ol' fashioned opinion, born of an apparent (but as yet unknown) axe-to-grind. And this has nothing to do with whether I love USC or hate USC, so that weak red herring arguement is just plain insulting, but I accept your apology. I will continue to believe that the source cited does not support the original research and opinion apparent in the article. I prescribe anyone who thinks otherwise to take two readings of "encyclopedia" from the dictionary and call me in the morning. ;) Newguy34 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And let me help with the Original research discussion. From Wikipedia (with emphasis added where relevant, and for your dining enjoyment):

"Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Directly is the word, I think, that the Wiki Gods are trying to emphasize. Newguy34 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again: There are no "unpublished facts", they're included in the articles by university's own Daily Trojan, an article on CNN.com and the screenplay from the contemporary film All the President's Men and the separately written Wikipedia article (not by me) on ratfucking; the facts stated in the sources are the very definition of corruption --there is no "argument" there; in addition, there is no "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". This isn't my "opinion", as I wasn't even alive at the time this stuff occurred. These sources state information that is the indisputable definition of corruption and its presence in popular media confirms it is something that happened. It is "directly related" to the history of Student Politics section. The sources directly support the fact that 1960s student politics between conservative faction of students on the campus of the University of Southern California were notoriously corrupt; I will rewrite the passage to better address that and it will not be "opinion", "unpublished fact", etc. --Bobak (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW... The articles Bobak has cited show the spread of corruption from USC student republican groups into national politics. Had the actions of Segretti, et. al, not influenced the nation, they would be student "pranks" unworthy of inclusion in the article. However, the dirty tricks pioneered by USC student republicans did influence the nation in a big way. They were partially responsible for Nixon's impeachment. As Bobak's sources show, USC student politics is commonly cited as the progenitor of Nixon's dirty tricksters. As such, USC student poltics of the 1960s: 1) has significance and so should be mentioned; and 2) was both notorious (after the fact) and corrupt. Thus, I concur that Bobak's use of the phrase "notoriously corrupt" as apt. Vantelimus (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue on it. I still am not in complete agreement for the reasons I have articulated, but am largely satisfied with the revised text. I'll drop the issue for now, but reserve the right to object later (hmm, I kinda sound like a congressman there [sounds of shuttering]). Newguy34 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

E.A. Weinstein here, post-graduate at Rossier School of Education. I understand that historically USC was a largely politically conservative campus, but it in 2012, that period of its history seems clearly over. Anecdotally, there are almost twice as many undergraduates on campus who would self-describe as liberal as those who would self-describe as conservative; perhaps three to one Democratic at graduate level. Moving from "student politics" to the more inclusive arena of "University politics", within the combined faculty the number of Democratic-leaning faculty might easily be four or five to every one Republican leaning faculty member. The administrative staff is also heavily Democratic-leaning. Looking at the institution overall, with slightly more than 51,000 persons in the community, probably 12,000 or less could happily be identified as "conservatives" or "Republican leaning" while between two and three times that number would most happily identify as "Democratic" or "progressive". I am going to see what information I can glean from University sources to support these contentions. If and when I have those figures, I will publish them here, and recommend that we amend the section to accurately reflect the extent to which USC is now a far less conservative, far more progressive institution politically.E.a.weinstein (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I took a hacksaw to some sections that seemed to be growing encrusted with non-notable and unverifiable cruft, particularly the student government section (moved to administration & organization) and the list of engineering departments renamed to sponsors/boosters. I also moved some pictures around, removed some duplicate/redundant/conflicting information, and fixed some other stuff that was nagging me. I hope you all agree that I'm leaving the article in better shape than I found it. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work! I've gone through and done some significant work on the photo issues, as well as some minor prose work. The photo problem had been bugging me: originally, this article had far too few photos (and most of them were of terrible quality); then it ended up with too many photos (many redundant, some still terrible), and even after a previous editor moved a lot of the excessive stuff to a gallery, there remained sandwiching and redundant images. I've gone through and tried to match photos to relevant sections, reduce sandwiching and include a variety of areas while also removing redundancies and the gallery. I think the article is cleaner now. The article still can use more information and polish, but its in a much better state than a few days ago. --Bobak (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The history section is a complete mess. It's internally inconsistent--Was USC a Methodist school or a non-sectarian one??--scattershot, and incomplete.J P M7791 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of university history seems to occupy the minds of a lot people and especially when universities inherit names from older institutions and they change the name later. Some people want to cling to the old names while others want to move on and this can be confusing to the people looking at the university history. Care has to be taken when the university wants to strategically reposition itself from the old name in order to avoid being dragged down by the older name. Seetrue (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Traditions and student activities at the University of Southern California back to this article

I recently encountered the article Traditions and student activities at the University of Southern California. It was created four years ago as a simple "dump" of material from several of the sections in this article. But it has seen almost no usage or activity in the intervening four years (page views around ten a day; about a dozen content edits in four years). It is still a virtual copy of the information from this information as it existed four years ago, and in fact it contains LESS information on the subject that this parent article does, because people have tended to make their edits to this article rather than to the spinoff. I am proposing that the article be merged back to this one. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

First Black Student to enroll at USC

My niece recently enrolled at USC. She asked me if i knew who the first black student to enroll at USC was. She said shes had no luck trying to find out. I've looked and looked but cant find a solid answer. Can someone help me out with this one? D M A Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.98.153 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's been a while since this question was asked, but I believe there were multiple black students to enroll in 1901, so there's not necessarily just one "first". I do know that John Somerville was the first dental school graduate in 1907 (started in 1903). The Somerville Place/Floor is named for him and his wife (the first female black graduate from the dental school. - Jason Scott (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

RE Olympic accomplishments

It is currently stated in the article: "Trojan athletes have won 287 medals at the Olympic games (135 golds, 87 silvers and 65 bronzes), more than any other U.S. university.[16]"

How expansive is this accomplishment? Is this correct relative to all US institutions? And if this is correct, what about non-US institutions? Has another country and its institutions developed a comparable "quantity of athletes" (scholar-athletes)? How expansive can it be worded, eg, "more than any other university in the world." Are there other schools out there, comparable in quantity? If so, who are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.129.44 (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned footnote?

This article has an orphaned footnote in the section title "Footnotes" (above and prior to the "References and notes" section). The footnote is listed as "b" even though there is no prior note bearing "a"; it refers to USC's (often unsuccessful) request that the media not use the name "Southern Cal." I recall there were some edit wars several years ago over the name "Southern Cal" and over whether it's "incorrect" to use that name. The orphaned footnote appears to be a very neutral, straightforward statement addressing the issue, and it's definitely worthy of inclusion in this article because the name "Southern Cal" appears frequently in media reports, especially here on the East Coast and in the college football rankings. But the footnote itself shouldn't be an orphan and the "numbering" ("lettering"?) needs to be fixed. I'm not sure how best to make those fixes. It looks to me as though the footnotes were numbered manually and that there is a template (one I've never used) that corresponds to the note location in the text. It may, therefore, be as simple as simply correcting the manual numbering and then inserting the corresponding reference somewhere appropriate in the text. I'm inclined to defer to someone who has a connection to USC (alumnus, current student, administrator) as to where the best place for the reference might be. I suspect the correct place would be in conjunction with the parenthetical in the very first sentence. Some level of rewording is probably in order, though, because the footnote refers to "These other names" while the article does not. I'd suggest perhaps the footnote should just begin with the sentence that starts with the phrase "Despite its prevalent use." I'd also delete the phrase "the official position of USC" in favor of just saying "USC discourages use of 'Southern Cal' ...." The word "official" is so often a throwaway word that gets overused all over the Internet to make things seem more important than they are. It doesn't really add anything. What matters is that USC discourages the use of "Southern Cal." If USC does so, then there's no need to say it's an "official position."

The other reason I'm reluctant to start tweaking the footnote is that the reference numbers in this article seem muddled at best. Take a look at the first two paragraphs. The first paragraph cites to references 6, 7, and 8; the second paragraph then cites to 3, 9, 10, and 11. I know the reason for this is the infobox, which contains citations. Because the infobox coding appears first in any Wikipedia article, any citations in the infobox come "before" the text due to the software's "logic." The reader doesn't necessarily perceive it that way. I don't know if this is important enough to warrant fixing or if anyone else thinks it matters. 1995hoo (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Endowment

Under endowment, it shows USC's as $3.86 billion. This is from June 2012. As of June 2013 the endowment is $4.7 billion. This can be found in USC's financial report <https://about.usc.edu/files/2011/07/USC_Financial-Report.pdf> on pg. 27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.158.190 (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does that document say that the endowment is $4.7 billion? Page 34 shows it at $3.9 billion. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The endowment is only part of total investments. Total investments are $4.7 billion, but the endowment (as ElKevbo stated) is $3.9 billion. Also, the $3.9 billion endowment is from 2013, not 2012. The similar $3.9 billion in 2012 investments is coincidental. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Names

Why is it incorrect to cal it Southern Cal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmaaajjj2 (talk • contribs) 07:53, September 25, 2009

It keeps people from confusing it with the real USC. The University of South Carolina (USC) was a university 49 years before CA was a state and 79 years before Southern Cal even existed. Go Cocks!

The source is clearly linked in the article. Click on or search out the appropriate note and read the link. I believe the passage is even quoted in the note in the article. --Bobak (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobak, your own citation indicates that the university "discourages" the use of Southern Cal. When I changed it to this, you said that the subject gets to determine the status of this and everything else is POV. If this is the case, then it is POV to say that the name is "incorrect" as the university states that it is a "discouraged" name. Correctly, according to citation, it should read something akin to "the university discourages..." Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it should read something similar to "an non-preferred..." Are you willing to use your own criterion in this case (that the subject gets to say what is POV and what is not)? Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPOV, which sets forth Wikipedia's position on this sort of issue. The passage quoted in the article establishes that USC discourages the usage of "Southern Cal," but it doesn't prove that it's "incorrect"; if anything, it establishes that it is "correct" but not preferred. Either way, user Bobak doesn't get to decide the issue and doesn't get to impose his own rules. Wikipedia's guidelines govern. The page I linked in the first sentence here says that the correct way to deal with this sort of issue is to note that the issue exists while not taking sides. I've edited the article according to the guidelines set forth on that page. Of course I know that someone will engage in bad-faith reversion, but that doesn't mean I wasn't going to do the right thing. You can't get much more neutral than the version I used, as it directly tracks what the footnote says! 138.88.32.210 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand how leaving Southern Cal out of the lead is anything but POV even if the university doesn't want it used. Who cares if they do or don't? Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on University of Southern California. 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/20140821194947/http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2005/10/21/News/Shoah.Hosts.Holocaust.History.At.Usc-1029410.shtml to http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2005/10/21/News/Shoah.Hosts.Holocaust.History.At.Usc-1029410.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512112756/http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1112/USCFreshmanProfile2011v4.pdf to http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1112/USCFreshmanProfile2011v4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131227220608/http://www.usc.edu:80/admission/undergraduate/apply/documents/FreshmanProfile2013FINAL.pdf to http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/apply/documents/FreshmanProfile2013FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120729173535/http://trojanvision.com/?page_id=2 to http://trojanvision.com/?page_id=2

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} 20:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Start Class" ranking info

Another editor has repeatedly inserted this source? It's being used in this article into this article to support the claim that "As of 2015, USC is the #22 Ranked Research University on StartClass." First, I'm not even sure if this is a reliable source by our standards. The website includes some information at the bottom of the page where sources for the information are listed and they include Wikipedia although it's not clear what information from Wikipedia is included. The website's about page doesn't seem to provide any helpful information. Second, it seems like it's undue weight to include this website without any information about whether anyone else uses, respects, or has otherwise given this website any credibility in the area of university rankings. I know of no such evidence and it's incumbent on those who want to include the information in an encyclopedia article to provide some evidence in this area. ElKevbo (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like just another spammy ranking to me. I'd err on the side of not including it. Esrever ^(klaT) 00:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Contributor321 (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Southern California. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080625134559/http://www.nationalmerit.org/07_annual_report.pdf to http://www.nationalmerit.org/07_annual_report.pdf

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} 15:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

early USC nickname(s)

There is a discussion at Talk:USC Trojans football#early USC nickname.28s.29 in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy of Latin tenses used in translation of identical school mottos: "Palman qui meruit ferat"

Upper Canada College (UCC), in Toronto, Canada, was founded in 1829 and has the identical motto "Palman qui meruit ferat," to that of University of Southern California (USC). What differs is the English translation of the phrase. UCC translates it in the past tense in English as, "Let he who merited the palm bear it." Whereas, USC translates it in the present tense as, "Let whoever earns the palm bear it." [It was often a reminder to student-athletes that it is a Roman tradition and ideal that was inherited, and a palm represents an award for athletic achievement that pre-dates the practice of awarding gold, silver, or bronze medals-that began with the modern Olympics.] Both are educational institutions, one is dedicated exclusively to adolescent males. The other, to co-educational adults. One's foundation pre-dates the other by 52 years. I studied Latin at Upper Canada College under a British Scholar, Terence Bredin. If scholar Terence Bredin still lives, I recommend both his and any other Latin authority of USC to concur, reach consensus, or quorum, as to the accurate translation of each school's respective motto. The author of this edit would also request a monetary honorarium for bringing this to light. He later studied at the University of Washington, Seattle, earning a Bachelor's Degree. By the way, UW's motto is "LUX SIT", translated means, "Let there be light." ReganFraser (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC) ReganFraser (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

USC translates its own motto thusly. Since that's the reliable source we've been given, that's the way it's translated here. What UCC translates their motto as is irrelevant. Esrever ^(klaT)

Sexual Harassment Scandals

I don't quite understand why a University's "history" section should have a long narrative about sexual harassment claims by various parties. This is irrelevant to the University's overall history in any meaningful sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pterodactyl717 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The claims have already resulted in the university's president stepping down with perhaps more results to come (certainly a massive payout to settle claims against the university as a result of the doctor who has been allegedly abusing patients for years) so they're clearly of both contemporary and historical importance. Two paragraphs of negative information in an otherwise glowing article is not only tolerable but it's shocking that no one added this information until today. ElKevbo (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with McAlister Field

This subject has no significant coverage (typically just a mention as an events location) making it non-notable. Some of the content could be merged to the University of Southern California article. Gab4gab (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Strong Keep/No merging - The first item I'd like to discuss is that USC's McAlister Field is an NCAA Division I sports page and shouldn't be merged into the university main page. College sports stadiums aren't merged into university main pages if athletic pages exist and all NCAA Division I schools have athletic pages especially those in NCAA Power 5 conferences.

The second item I'd like to discuss is that this page was reviewed 2x's upon completion and found notable by both reviewers.

The third item is that it is incorrect to say there is no significant coverage about this topic. It can be argued and even proven that this topic receives more coverage than identical pages on Wikipedia. USC soccer is a national soccer power with multiple national championships and receives more media coverage (L.A. media market & NCAA Power 5 conference) for both games and soccer facilities than other college soccer programs. If the McAlister Field page isn't notable, then no other college soccer stadiums are notable based on available references and coverage of this topic. I included a list below of the hundreds of college soccer stadiums that need to be discussed for notability and redirected. Once it has been established that zero college soccer stadiums are notable on Wikipedia, then we need to delete the entire category since all college soccer stadiums wouldn't be notable based on the precedence set here.

Pages in category "College soccer venues in the United States" The following 166 pages are in this category, out of 166 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more). A- A.J. Simeon Stadium Air Force Soccer Stadium Al F. Caniglia Field Al-Marzook Field Alabama Soccer Stadium Albert–Daly Field All-High Stadium Alumni Field (Wright State) Alumni Stadium (Notre Dame) Arad McCutchan Stadium Audrey J. Walton Stadium (Columbia, Missouri) Aviator Sports and Events Center B- Baujan Field Belson Stadium Bob Ford Field Bud and Jackie Sellick Bowl Bulldog Stadium (Bryant University) Burnham Field Busch Field C- Cajun Field Cardinal Stadium (Washington, D.C.) Cessna Stadium Charles A. Gaetano Stadium Charles F. Berman Field CIBER Field at the University of Denver Soccer Stadium Coastal Carolina University Soccer Field Cobb Stadium Coffey Field Colley Track/Soccer Complex Columbia Soccer Stadium Corbett Soccer Stadium Corcoran Field The Corn Crib Cougars Den Cowgirl Field D- Dacotah Field Demske Sports Complex Drake Stadium (Drake University) Durwood Soccer Stadium E- E. Claiborne Robins Stadium E. S. Rose Park Eagle Field (stadium) East River Soccer Complex Ellis Field (Texas A&M) Eugene E. Stone III Stadium (Columbia, South Carolina) Eugene E. Stone III Stadium (Greenville, South Carolina) F- Fetzer Field FGCU Soccer Complex Fifth Third Bank Stadium G- Gaelic Park Gayle and Tom Benson Stadium GCU Stadium Gene Bissell Field Generals Soccer Field George Allen Field Glenn Warner Soccer Facility Grand Park (Indiana) Griggs Field at James S. Malosky Stadium GSU Soccer Complex H- Harlen C. Hunter Stadium Herb Parker Stadium Hermann Stadium Hilken Community Stadium Hodges Stadium Hofstra University Soccer Stadium Homewood Field Hurricane Soccer & Track Stadium I- Icahn Stadium Illinois Soccer and Track Stadium Irwin Belk Track and Field Center/Transamerica Field IU Michael A. Carroll Track & Soccer Stadium J- Jaguar Park James G. Pressly Stadium James M. Shuart Stadium Jesse Owens Memorial Stadium John Walker Soccer Complex Jordan Field K- Kenneth P. LaValle Stadium Kentner Stadium Kiwanis Stadium Klöckner Stadium Koskinen Stadium Krenzler Field L- Lady Demon Soccer Complex Lady Techster Soccer Complex Laird Q. Cagan Stadium Lamar Soccer Complex LeBard Stadium Lessing Field Lincoln Land Soccer Field Linda Johnson Smith Soccer Stadium Loftus Sports Center Long Island University Field Ludwig Field Dr. Mark & Cindy Lynn Stadium M- MacKenzie Alumni Field Macpherson Stadium, North Carolina Mayo Field (Centenary) Mazzella Field McCarthy Stadium Method Road Soccer Stadium Mickey Cochrane Stadium Mike A. Myers Stadium Morris Field (Robert Morris–Illinois) Morrison Stadium MUSC Health Stadium N- Nickerson Field NIU Soccer and Track & Field Complex North Athletic Complex O- Old Dominion Soccer Complex Oliver C. Dawson Stadium Owen T. Carroll Field P- Parsons Field Patchin Field Petersen Sports Complex Princeton University Stadium R- Ragin' Cajuns Soccer/Track Facility Ralph E. Davis Pioneer Stadium Ralph Korte Stadium Reese Stadium Rice Track/Soccer Stadium Ridley Athletic Complex Riggs Field Robert K. Kraft Field at Lawrence A. Wien Stadium Roberts Stadium (soccer stadium) Robertson Stadium Ross Memorial Park and Alexandre Stadium Roy Rike Field Rudd Field (UMass) S- Sandra D. Thompson Field Seminole Soccer Complex Shea Stadium (Peoria, Illinois) Shentel Stadium South Alabama Soccer Complex South Field (Provo) Southeastern Soccer Complex Sports Backers Stadium Village of Lisle-Benedictine University Sports Complex Sprague Field Stambaugh Stadium Reinhart Field Stuart and Suzanne Grant Stadium SU Soccer Stadium Summers-Taylor Stadium Suprenant Field The Swamp (LSUS) Sweeney Field T- Texas A&M International University Soccer Complex Titan Soccer Complex U- ULM Soccer Complex UNCG Soccer Stadium University at Buffalo Stadium USF Track and Field Stadium V- Veterans Memorial Soccer Complex W- W. Dennie Spry Soccer Stadium Wagner College Stadium Waipio Peninsula Soccer Stadium Wallis Annenberg Stadium Whitten Soccer Complex Wildcat Field (Louisiana College) Wish Field/Cacciatore Stadium WMU Soccer Complex Y- Yager Stadium at Moore Bowl Yurcak Field
Spatms (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that Div 1 college stadium articles don't require any significant coverage or content to be kept, my appologies, Gab4gab (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but this page is included in a sports category that does not receive the coverage that sports such as MLS soccer, college football and college basketball receive. The McAlister Field page as a whole is very notable based on coverage and available references within the category of college soccer stadiums. You could make the argument that the topic of college soccer stadiums isn't notable, but there are over one hundred individual articles on the topic making the topic notable as a whole. Due to the media coverage of USC soccer and in turn coverage and references available for McAlister Field make it notable compared to other college soccer stadiums. I just can't see deleting this category with over one hundred pages because this is what you would need to do if McAlister Field isn't deemed notable. You would set the precedent that no college soccer stadiums should exist on Wikipedia, because McAlister Field has more references compared to other college soccer stadiums. If we were comparing McAlister Field to Yankee Stadium, The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, The Superdome, then I would agree with you, but we're comparing McAlister Field to other college soccer stadiums. Since we're comparing it to similar stadiums, it meets the requirements of notability based on available references and significant coverage.Spatms (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability should be based on meeting a notability guideline, not a comparison to other things that exist. However I realize that in practice the bar is often set very low for sports and college/university related articles so I'm happy to leave it alone. Gab4gab (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for working with me on this issue and your understanding. It is appreciated.Spatms (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Photos of alums

The photos of alums feature only one woman, Pat Nixon, who's mostly known for the guy she married, not because of any accomplishment of her own. Can someone find some photos of notable USC female graduates to include?

VanEman (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"U$C" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect U$C. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 4#U$C until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead tag

I've tagged the lead for rewriting due to concerns about WP:Boosterism. Among the issues:

• ranked among the top universities in the United States is not adequately supported by the WP:SYNTH references; see WP:HIGHEREDREP.
• Almost no coverage of its post-founding history, its campus, its academics, and its organization, all of which are important sections in the body.
• At the same time, excessive coverage of alumni and research achievements and athletics.
• generates an estimated $8 billion of economic impact on California is another exceptional claim that's inadequately sourced. The only source is a USC press release, a WP:PRIMARY source, which talks about an independent economic impact study but then admits farther down that it was commissioned by the university.

These issues should be resolved before the tag is removed. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Teresa Teng 10.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)