Talk:Georgetown University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Intro

Whoever keeps using a colon in the intro paragraph, please stop it, your phrasing is awkward. Also, it is ridiculous to preface Georgetown's excellence with "Catholic" it is a universally exceptional institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.176 (talk • contribs)

School of Medicine

The school ranks down in the forties for medicine by U.S. News. Simply because it is selective (most medical schools are) and affiliated with a well known school does not make necessarily make it high performing. Also, in comparison to the other divisions mentioned, it stature is out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.82.201 (talk • contribs)

SEE response below...

Introduction

I have redone the opening to address what I think are some salient problems. Positing that Georgetown is amongst the nation’s best universities without citation is a problematic. This is not acceptable in terms of how articles on wikipedia are written with respect to institutions of higher learning (“Georgetown University is globally recognized for the strength of its academic programs,” is impermissible). Such a claim must be sourced – see the University of Chicago for a good example. Moreover, this is not just meaningless rule mongering. Georgetown does not make the same standout case for itself that Stanford or Columbia for instance achieve in terms of - all around - excellence. Rather, its stature is inherently more nuanced. The ‘Times’ and ‘Economist’ rankings are incorporated into nearly every other major American school’s opening or rankings section, and they seem salient here. Also, disaggregating the divisions seems important, as Georgetown has quite few that are lagging in performance, such as its business school, medical school, or its Ph.D. programs. That being said, the fact that the school is seen by Americans, the case would be hard to verify globally, as highly prestigious, as well as politically influential, is worth noting in the lead. I did not have the time to look up surveys, New York Times articles and the like, but several citations for each would be valuable here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.103.204 (talk • contribs)

In terms of the business school "lagging" in performance; it's actually very much on the upswing. The University is building a new $80-million home for McDonough and in one recent metric, the MBA program jumped from in the 38th to 19th in the country in the last year as per the Wall Street Journal. Source: http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=18825 141.161.109.120 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

19th is pretty bad considering how large MBA programs are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.213.83 (talk • contribs)

Whoever keeps using a colon in the intro paragraph, please stop it, your phrasing is awkward. Also, it is ridiculous to preface Georgetown's excellence with "Catholic" it is a universally exceptional institution. Also, Georgetown's reputation is at least and I would argue more global then that of Columbia. Georgetown has a higher % of international students and has certainly graduated more foreign heads of state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.176 (talk • contribs)

No one said that it wasn't an excellent school - but that is a personal judgement and is not allowed per Wiki policy. See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Also see, Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism --Strothra 00:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This poster, I presume in medical school, continues to insert the same material in the introduction. Should we consider blocking the IP on vandalism grounds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.82.202 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

It is not subject to NPOV, all the rankings you cite state it objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.176 (talk • contribs)

Rankings refer to specific categories, not broad generalizations as you are attempting to make. --Strothra 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Times and Institute of Higher Education rankings are both aiming for a comprehensive asessment of the university, and if you look at what they find, Georgetown is not much of a standout. I don't care to get into an edit war over this, but as it reads the introduction is just horribly contradicted by the facts. Georgetown lacks the serious, graduate level research agenda that top tier institutions do. However, it is very politically influential, and certainly turns out a fair number of prominent alumni, and hence I would argue to keep the Catholic line, but yet find some sources that speak the schools unique position as being substantially more prominent in a meaningful, social networking way than in terms of hard academics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.226.164 (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

It is a shame the opening has now been entirely drawn down on account of one users clear violation of Wiki Policy. Effectively, this article is redacting information in order to achieve academic boosterism by a back door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.226.49 (talk • contribs)

Endowment

The Washington Post ran an article a few weeks back about Georgetown's endowment and listed it at $850 million. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100832.html. I was wondering if anyone had a recent and reliable figure to substantiate either the $850 or the $741.1 listed in the wiki article.

SWQ

1. The SWQ is, in fact, a 1000+ bed facility. The original plans for 750+ bed were modified when demand for oncampus housing turned out to be higher than expected.

2. Unless someone can establish a clear correlation between failures of US diplomats to know foreign languages during the early part of the 20th century and the establishment of the SFS, I don't think that the comment belongs in the article -- in consultation with one of the Deans at Georgetown, as well as with the library staff, we could find no clear link between the one and the other. Please correct me if I am wrong.

3. The major divisions between available degrees are to be phased out over a period of 3 years, beginning in the Fall of 2005 and ending in the Fall of 2008. This plan will be announced at the beginning of the Spring semester in 2005.

I'm going to implement revisions in reference to 1 and 3. I also want to make the tiniest of grammatical alterations. I'll leave 2 open for discussion, but I really think that a comment like the one currently contained in the article needs to have some substantiated material that we can refer to and possibly link in the article.

History

The history section should be expanded; should information on the Jesuit suppression (restored in 1814) be moved to the lower section, out of the lead para.? Thanks Dpr 10:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

added alumni listed in the SFS article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_A._Walsh_School_of_Foreign_Service) but not found in the Georgetown University article.

changed "famous alumni" section header to "notable alumni" --Classwarrior 22:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the "Catholic" Harvard ... -- Excuse me? (You are excused)

Where do you get off calling Georgetown the "Catholic" Harvard? If he/she gets accepted to both the former school and the latter, he would absolutely go to Harvard regardless of his religion.

Georgetown can never be a Harvard. I understand you wanna make Georgetown univ. look good, but please do not insert an absurd, off-putting remark on the page.

Either a current (Philippines, Jordan) Future (Spain) or an immediate past (United States and Portugal) Head of State or Government for five of the hundred most populous and three of the thirty most populous nations in the world, is a Georgetown alumnus. Your comment is the absurd one and indicates a degree of ignorance and/or prejudice that is simply amazing in 2005.

(This was not my comment but, my son-we live in a suburb of Washington, is currently being tutored by a former Harvard undergrad who transferred to Georgetown's Foreign Service School so apprarently things aren't as absolute as you would like to believe.)

Harvard is the world's best university, but it does not exceed Julliard in music, CalTech in physics, West Point in military science, Notre Dame in football or Georgetown in diplomacy. It is not "absurd" to describe Juillard as the "Harvard" of Music or West Point as the "Harvard" of Military Service. It is not out of line to say that Stanford is the "Harvard" of the West, Duke the "Harvard" of the South or that Georgetown is the "Catholic" Harvard. Any institution that legitimately manifests world class excellence can be described as the "Harvard" of its particular milieu, when the term "Harvard" is a synonym for the best in a given area. This is an article for God's sake, and an apt description is an apt description.

Any person looking objectively at Georgetown's international relations faculty (which includes a former Secretary of State, former CIA Director and former Presidential Advisor for National Security Affairs ), would make themselves a fool by not acknowledging the excellence of Georgetown. A young person who wants to make a career in the diplomatic, intelligence or international think tank and policy-making communities, would have to seriously consider Georgetown to any other institution in the world, and it would not be "absurd' for that young person to choose Georgetown over any other institution.

--Above exchange is written from 199.207.253.96 and 199.207.253.101

It is Wikipedia policy to write articles using Neutral Points of View and a statement calling Georgetown University the Harvard of Catholic Education is considered a biased point of view. Unless you can cite it as a quotation from a Georgetown University publication acknowledging itself in that manner, then the comment should be omitted from the article text. --Gerald Farinas 18:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Georgetown does not have to look good since it is good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.50.51 (talk • contribs) .

One could even plausibly argue that given the range of the influential positions held by its alumni and the quality of its student body and faculty in early 2006, Georgetown is among the handful of the most politically influential universities in the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs)

"Harvard" as a term denoting a paragon of education is nearly as crusty, overwrought, and ultimately archaic as the stiff and ostentatious courtship practices of the nineteenth century. Any honest research and appraisal reveals that the "ivies" are clearly resting on their laurels. Jesuit schools, on the whole, through adherence to great book rigors, far exceed the now whimsical and often agenda oriented cirrucula of ivy schools. Further, claiming that Harvard is the best school in the "world" (think: Oxford, Sorbonne, Cambridge, Rome, Beijing, etc.) reveals a provincial and jingoistic ignorance certainly not indicative of fine education.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.59.235 (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth, I understand the logic behind using the Harvard analog as a relatively objective standard of comparison, and agree with it (for what it's also worth, I turned down Harvard for G'town. And I'm not Catholic or Christian at all, so it's not even as though a religious factor counted). Mohsin.Siddiqui 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I went to Georgetown. I'm familiar with Harvard. Georgetown's not Harvard, and it does not want to be. While a statement like this cannot really ever be proven, I can say that I have met a large number of Georgetown students who were admitted to Harvard and chose Georgetown. I can point to just as many students who transferred out of Harvard and into Georgetown. Anecdotes aren't everything, but they're-you're excused-quite helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.153.29 (talk • contribs)

-- Regarding the "no one chooses Georgetown over Harvard" debate, I can point to my freshman year roommate who did. He got a 1570 on his SAT (before they adjusted the scale in the mid or late 90s) and chose the SFS, where we both were, over Harvard because the education in SFS affords different opportunities for internships, etc. that aren't available in Boston. He did, however, go to Harvard Law School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.94.138 (talk • contribs)

I chose Georgetown over Princeton and know many who chose Georgetown over Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, etc. Also I am not Catholic. It is simply ignorant to say that anyone, regardless of religion, would absolutely go to Harvard over Georgetown "if he/she gets accepted to both." (Incidentally, I also know many who were rejected by Georgetown but who got in to Harvard). It is equally ignorant to make statements like "Harvard is the world's best university." Obviously that is a totally subjective question. Georgetown is an excellent, prestigious school, and it is very difficult to get into. Please do not make uneducated posts.

Avoiding the Invevitable

I understand Georgetown follows Jesuit beliefs, but some of their policies seem a little old-fashioned and problematic, for example...

Because of Georgetown’s Jesuit identity, birth control is not available on campus. Furthermore, none of the on-campus stores carry condoms; the closest place to get such products is CVS on Wisconsin Ave.

When 15-20% of students at Georgetown already have STD's, how could having these things more available hurt?

info taken from the College Prowler guidebook; Georgetown University - Off the Record

• Condoms are available free of charge in Red Square from the unofficial student group "H*yas for Choice" a few days a week. Wisconsin Ave isn't more than a 10-15 minute walk. Fightindaman 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

12.150.160.194 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of how GU's catholic character influences its pursuit of its educational mission should receive some additional discussion. For example, in 1992, Georgetown revoked the status of a group called Hoyas for Choice. This organization had been accredited with the Student Activities Commission, but this accreditation resulted in a controversy. See the Ignation Society website, http://www.tboyle.net/University/G.U._Choice_Files.html for a description. The result of the wrangling was that Hoyas for Choice had its status revoked.

It appears that, to date, H*yas for Choice, a successor to Hoyas for Choice, has not received accreditation, funding or membership in the Student Affairs Commission (the governing body for student groups). See "H*yas for Choice Submits SAC Application," The Hoya, Tuesday, April 1, 2003 or "H*yas should not be funded", Georgetown Independent, 4/2/03, available at http://www.thegeorgetownindependent.com/media/paper136/news/2003/04/02/Editorials/Hyas-Should.Not.Be.Funded-405472.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thegeorgetownindependent.com.

Such content-based censorship on students' rights of free speech and association seems incompatible with the educational mission of a first-rate institution.

12.150.160.194 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The school has the option to give money to whomever it chooses. The use of contraception is immoral according to Church teaching and as such the school has decided that it does not want to fund the distribution of contraception on campus (nor provide funding for a group which condones the practice of abortion). While I may disagree with their value judgment, I don't think that the school should be forced to fund causes it does not believe in. If some students put together a group called "Hoyas for racial segregation" would the Univeristy have to give them money too? Fightindaman

___

I don't disagree that there is no way to force the school to do anything different, and you may be right that one should not even try. That is not, however, the question here. The question is whether the choice the school made is interesting from the prospective of the reader. Perhaps this comment would be better made in relation to the "Student organizations and media" section. I'll move there.

___

As someone who worked in the Office of Student Programs when Hoyas For Choice lost recognition, I have to say that the question of recognition by the university turned on whether or not Hoyas For Choice was a discussion group (permissible) or a group that would take pro-abortion action (forbidden). The decision was not made by students of the Student Activities Commission, but by an administrator, John DeGioia, though I can't recall if he was still dean of students or if he was already the provost at the time. DeGioia found that Hoyas For Choice was no longer simply speaking about choice, but had begun taking pro-choice actions that the university found objectionable. That's why Hoyas For Choice lost recognition-- it wasn't what they said or wrote, but what they did using university resources. DeGioia wrote a letter about his decision that the Hoya newspaper printed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preserved killick (talk • contribs)

Georgetown in Maryland pre-1871?

Wouldn't Georgetown have been in Montgomery County, Maryland before Georgetown was absorbed into DC in 1871 (See History of Washington, D.C.)? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the history?

K: You are correct, and it might be worthy of note. The Georgetown Seal is an anachronism in this respect, with the Latin around it "Collegium Georgiopolitanum ad ripas Potomaci in Marylandia" or, for non-Latin scholars, "The College of Georgetown on the shores of the Potomac in Maryland."

The city/town of Georgetown, Maryland was abosorbed into the District of Columbia when DC was created in 1790. It was then the independent city/town of Gerorgetown, DC. When DC was created, it consisted of multiple counties and municipalities, Georgetown, Washington city, Washington county, Alexandria city and Alexandria county. The Alexandrias retroceded to Virginia in 1846. In 1871, the city of Washington took over the entire remaining District, mergering with Washington county and the city of Georgetown, DC. This is modern Washington, DC, with Georgetown as a neighborhood rather than a separate city within DC.

Georgetown Medical School "Not Competitive" Comment

Someone has placed the comment that Georgetown Medical School, which accepts less than 5% of its applicants,is "not competitive." Whatever Georgetown Medical School's standing is in a magazine survey, there is no question that its level of competitiveness is extraordinarily high and that many gifted undergraduates would prize a place there to study to become a physician. Competitiveness refers to the competition and resulting quality of the student body and the ranking in the magazine is irrelevant to this criterion.

I agree with this response. Georgetown University School of Medicine receives the 5th highest amount of applications out of medical schools in the United States (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2006/2006school.htm). This means that one out of every 4 applicants apply to Georgetown every year (there is usually between 30,000 and 35,000 total medical school applications). More people apply to Georgetown than Harvard, John Hopkins, or Duke. The acceptance rate is also lower than Harvard, John Hopkins, or Duke (all private national schools). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.60.92 (talk • contribs)

Gross admissions numbers tell you very little. Using sheer volume of applicants or GPA is not a great measure of institutional success, insofar as they do not take into account who is applying nor where these GPA are coming from. A much better indicator from US News is peer assessment scores on academic quality which consider in part students (Harvard - 4.8, JHU - 4.8, Georgetown - 2.9), as well as those given by residency directors which focus almost exclusively on students (Harvard - 4.7, JHU - 4.6, Georgetown - 3.5). It is precisely by these criterion, arguably the most insightful of the entire ranking process since they get behind the numbers, that the final composite scores pan out the way they do (Harvard - 100, JHU - 80, Georgetown - 44). Saying the medical school is highly ranked by looking at applicant volume is akin to saying it is popular with students, but that is not what the article context is attempting to convey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.190.154 (talk • contribs)

Stone Throwing

Just a piddling thing, and I'm not an idiot so I realize this is an expression, but I have a problem with this "stone's throw from the Potomac" line. There's no truth to it. I live on the corner of campus closest to the Potomac, and I definitely couldn't hit Potomac from there. I have a slightly above average throw, I'd say, as well. I think you'd have to be Achilles or something to hit Potomac with a stone from campus. Even the canal would be difficult... I doubt I could do that even- Likely I'd end up hitting a car on M St. / Foxhall. So I say "overlooks the Potomac" would be better. I really don't want to change it myself though.

You can hit it from the car barn (sic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.176 (talk • contribs)

GIRA

http://www.modelun.org/gira/index.html is listed as an organization under Georgetown University however the front page of the site says:

"GIRA is not affiliated with Georgetown University"

not sure if I am missing something but any confirmations/digressions would be nice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.182.176 (talk • contribs)

• Answer: first off, possibly b/c of your comments, GIRA was correctly removed from this page. GIRA goes out of its way to say that it's not affiliated with Georgetown b/c of legal liability (they host large conferences). The confusion is understandible b/c its membership is almost 100% current Georgetown undergrads, and b/c its board overlaps with that of the Georgetown International Relations Club, which is a University-sponsored club.--M@rēino 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a Faculty Section

I removed the following passage from the history section due to the nature of the paragraph referring to a specific faculty appointment. This information is best included in a section about Georgetown University's faculty and not one intended to highlight the history of the institution. In addition, this information only refers to faculty that have joined the School of Foreign Service and should be balanced with the major appointments in the University's other schools.

During the Fall 2004 semester, Georgetown announced the appointment of former-CIA director George Tenet to the University teaching staff. Tenet joined other distinguished Georgetown faculty including former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Ambassador at Large Robert L. Gallucci, and former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar. - unsigned comments by 141.161.121.52

I moved the paragraph about faculty to a "Faculty" subheading. Feel free to improve it. --Aude 16:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I added Andrew Natsios (USAID Head Administrator) to the list of faculty. Tlaktan 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Visual Appeal of Picture By Campus Section is ... Somewhat Lacking

This is mostly an aesthetic issue, but it has bothered me for months: couldn't we have a picture other than that horrid law campus shot for the introduction of the main campus? Maybe an internal shot of Dalghren quad or the Main quad in bloom or something of that nature ... it's a bit discordant to be speaking of fountains, cemetaries, trees, flowers, and ivy, and to have a shot of a concrete monster heading up the article.

All due respect to the Law School graduates, of course ;) But I know there are better shots out there ...

• I can try to take something of Dahlgren. Maybe if we get a bit of snow or something. Otherwise I guess I'll wait till spring. Fightindaman 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just moved the law center pict. to the pgph about the law center, and swapped position with the healy hall img. Of course, when we get better pictures, we can arrange them better. Or you think the current article can be better, be bold and go ahead and change it. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I swapped a picture of Dahlgren quad for the law center photo and moved the two pics around a bit. Fightindaman 07:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The page is looking much better; the Dahlgren shot is really well framed. I wish I had better photos to offer, but I'm pulling from only a few that I took while at GU in 2003. Didn't have a good camera then. SCUMATT 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Tulane does not apply

Tulane's admission standards, quality of alumni and student achievement , and educational resources are not comparable to Georgetown's. Tulane's acceptance rate is double that of Georgetown and its standardized test scores lag by over a hundred to hundred and fifty points, the student body at G.U. (See any reputable college guide such as Princeton Review, Fiske or US News.) Please, lets not have a statement that is not supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs)

This is credited. Comparisons should be based on the schools that are listed in such guides as overlap schools either academically or in terms of students they attract. Tulane falls into neither group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.190.154 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Need to Verify and Validate International College Rankings

Someone has placed international university rankings from two sources that could not be found in the Wikipedia, including one from an obscure university in China. Can someone verify this information? Additionally, someone needs to explain how, with the differing requirements for entrance, and differing courses of studies (some countries issue 3 year first degrees, others 4 year degrees; some let holders of masters degrees use the term doctor; professional degree courses vary in length and content etc. etc.) an apples to apples international comparison of a university with many diverse programs in one system can be compared to another. I can see where an international ranking of, for instance, MBA programs could be valid. If these rankings are pure polls, the polling needs to be vetted. Maybe the two rankings have value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs)

They are extensively discussed here [1]. They are widely used by media, for instance the Economist, Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post as the standard for pan-university rankings. US News makes no attempt in this vein. They are cited in the articles for Princeton, Harvard, UChicago and Oxford just to name a few. They do, however, employ very different methodologies. I would wager a reason they are seen as useful since they contain few suprises. The good schools end up at the top year after year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.190.206 (talk • contribs)

Merge discussion: Communication, Culture & Technology

I am proposing the merging of the entirity of the Communication, Culture & Technology article (the entirity of which refers to a master's program at Georgetown) into the Academics section of this article. My vote, obviously, is to merge. --EazieCheeze 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Shizoomy 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder though, do we really need that much information about the programme? If it seems that including it is essential to the article, then yes, it should remain merged, but I also think that it's a bit silly to just have the one MA programme discussed without mention of the others. Is there something in particular about the CCT programme that stands out? I didn't get that impression from my friends who were in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsin.Siddiqui (talk • contribs)

The CCT program should be listed only if the other graduate-level programs are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.121.62 (talk • contribs)

Georgetown Prep and Georgetown Visitation

These high schoolds once were part of and shared campus with GU. Should they be mentioned?Sabrebattletank 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

'Center for Muslim Christian Understanding'

I read something about the 'Center for Muslim Christian Understanding', a gift of 20 million dollar from Alwaleed bin Talal for islamic courses and the removal of an evangelical student group from campus. I didn't read stuff about that in the article. Does somebody know more? SietskeEN 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic studies program did recently receive a $20 million donation from said prince, and the name was changed to what you have listed above. The second part is a bit off; there was an evangelical Christian group which the Campus Ministry was affiliated with, that it recently broke ties with. Fightindaman 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Chartered name

As far as I know the chartered, historical name of the University, as I have observed on plaques and documents, is the "President and Directors of the College at George Town on the Potomac" , not the "College of Georgetown" which makes no sense. 141.161.96.171 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you go here: http://guide.georgetown.edu/slideshows/slides/show11_slide5.html, you can make out that it says "the president and Directors of the College of George Town within the District of Columbia." I had changed it to that from Georgetown College some time ago. Georgetown College is probably just a shorthand reference (as well as now the formal name for what used to be the College of Arts and Sciences). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.94.138 (talk • contribs)

Founding Date

I've watched this page bounce around over the last 2 weeks from very different versions of the history. I recognize the strong attachment to the 1634 version of events, and the desire that this should be noted, and while I think my school is better than those which happen to be older in America than it, I don't feel the need to pretend that it is something which it is not. 1789 is the date the school wants, it's what they announce, it's what's in the other encyclopedias, and it's what needs to be in this one.

What could be noted is that the date was considered to be 1788 until the 1840 yearbook, when it for no good reason was misprinted. However, since the university has chosen to recognize the date of the land deed as its foundation, and not of the slightly earlier chartering date, as is more commonly the case, the page should reflect this.

I moved the 1643 information to a separate page, currently "Founding of Georgetown University", and will add info about the events in 1789 tomorrow. I hope to extend this page to a full History of Georgetown University page one day, since the history section is already lengthy without much of what it could contain.--Patrickneil 05:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This 1643 thing seems odd to me. Maybe they planned on founding a school here, but Wikipedia says that Georgetown (the town) was first settled in 1696. --AW 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1634 is the arrival of the first Jesuits, and while they apparently had permission to found "a" university, "Georgetown University," the first of many Jesuit universities, it doesn't have substance until the 1780s. This new page tries to rely on strict fact, and I'd like to leave the "controversy" off of the main Georgetown page.--Patrickneil 04:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed --AW 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the seals were mentioned in the last edit, I would point out that the year 1789 is included prominently in both. Further, here are some sites that support 1789: Georgetown's homepage where it say "est. 1789," Georgetown's facts page, where it says "Established: 1789," Georgetown's at-a-glance page, where it says "Founded in 1789," Encyclopædia Britannica, where it says "founded in 1789," the list of founding dates world wide, Catholic Encyclopedia, where deals with this trend in historians saying "In treating of the origin of Geogetown University, its chronicles and historians are wont to refer to earlier schools in Maryland, projected or carried on by the Jesuits... and 1789 is considered to be the year of the foundation of the college, as the deed of the original piece of ground was dated 23 January of that year." If there are sites which support 1634, other than the outdated link to Coleman's 1930 book, please use them.

Besides these examples, I advise anyone considering the editing the 1634 date back in to look at the article in each of the other 11 modern languages it is written in, as they all say 1789 with no mention of 1634.--Patrickneil 16:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed again. Maybe at most we could say "the idea for founding a Jesuit school in the area first came about in 1634," or something, but then again I bet that is true of many schools - people wanted to found them years before they actually were founded. --AW 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As another user cited elsewhere, 1634 was not merely when the idea came about or when the Jesuits first arrived. It is in fact the founding date of Georgetown's predecessor school, St. Mary's City. Claiming the founding date of a predecessor school is far less dubious than claiming the date of an idea or of an arrival, and, again, as another user has noted, this in fact seems to be in line with the foundation date taken by, for example, Harvard, and more legitimate than Penn's 1740 claim, which is indeed merely the date that the idea for the university came about. For more information on St. Mary's City and Georgetown's predecessor schools, please see Coleman Nevils' "Miniatures of Georgetown: Tercentennial Causeries" (Georgetown University Press, 1934). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RotaryIntl (talk • contribs). 27 February 2007

Ok, I understand, but that school wasn't "Georgetown" University. Find a link were this is proven. I've googled "georgetown univeristy" and "1634" with little luck. I will pick up his book from Lauinger tomorrow, simply because I suspect it will ultimately be a very week support of 1634. The Catholic Encyclopedia, linked above, gives a good discussion of Georgetown's prehistory, and still declares 1789 to be the "founding date." It's not really the same as Penn's claim, where the date of it's "founding" is 10 years, not 150, before it's first student or Harvard's, which has a very strong claim to 1636.--Patrickneil 03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So I picked up the book. I direct you to page 5: "We are perfectly satisfied to keep our date of foundation as 1789, but we do hold that if the First Founders of Georgetown had been granted the same considerations and privilages that were given other institutions established under different religious auspices, the foundation of Georgetown College would be 1634- it is Georgetown's de jure." First, he recognizes 1789. Second, his lament, similar to yours, that other schools get to count older dates sounds like "since you get to lie, so do we." Again, let Penn lie on their page, and ours be truthful. Third, I understand his point that without the prior schools, you don't get Georgetown, but why not then extend it to where White himself was educated? What it tells me is that four schools which preceded the College could be separate pages on Wikipedia. You can list this "St. Mary's/St. Inigoes" school as opening shortly in 1634, then from 1640 to its closing in 1645. The next Jesuit school in Maryland opened 1677 in Newtown Manor and closed in 1703. The next in Bohemia Manor in 1745, which closed "several years later." Nevils tries hard to connect these schools into one organization, though I'm just not convinced. However I will try to further integrate this information into the Founding of Georgetown University page.--Patrickneil 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual, I agree with Patrickneil on this. We shouldn't be looking at other universities, just when the actual school was founded. As he points, founding a school which closes, then another which and closes doesn't seem to me to be Georgetown --AW 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevbo's edits are ok, but I think it should have more caveats - that nobody settled Georgetown the town until 1696, and the part about the schools closing. --AW 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would advise caution in adding caveats of our own making - that way lies original research... --ElKevbo 17:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, most mark 1798, the year Neale took over, as the founding date? This too is wrong. I know no one who claims 1798, and no source that says that. Previously I changed the page to reflect that John Carrol was never "president" of Georgetown, and Neale was the first in that position, but that doesn't mean the school was founded when he took over what was then a working institution.--Patrickneil 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that was a typo. I think the most recent version is fair though. --AW 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

General comment on the quality of this article (after looking into a question about possible COI postings by employees)

The following is adapted from a posting at the WP:COI/N noticeboard, which is used to handle complaints about editors who may have a conflict of interest. For example, college employees who might be writing about their own college. Those interested may refer to that noticeboard to find the complete entry here. Back in January, User:Awiseman made this posting:

The IP user User:68.98.161.246 has made more than 300 edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University and Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in a positive nature. I think the IP should be checked to see if it comes from the university. For example, there has been a discussion at the School of Foreign Service article about academic boosterism by the user. Here are their contributions: Special:Contributions/68.98.161.246. Another similar IP user has made similar boosteristic edits, Special:Contributions/68.49.15.185. Thanks --AW 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Other contributors to the COI noticeboard looked into this issue, but with inconclusive results. On the issue of whether the complaint should be closed, I read through the article to see if 'boosterism' was a persuasive problem. Editors who follow this article closely may have their own opinions, that they might want to add below.

This article is not that bad, though it suffers in part from boosterism and weak prose, as the following illustrates:

Several academic themes distinguish the McDonough School of Business and give the school a special identity among managers and academicians, including international and intercultural dimensions of the marketplace, the importance of written and oral communication, and interpersonal effectiveness in organizations.

So there is a mixture of really interesting stuff, and passages of flabby prose. There is an insufferably-long list of notable alumni. Luckily there is a separate article with a list of alumni, which is pretty well-written and not objectionable. In the recent edit history, there seems to be a dogged attempt by one particular anon to reset the University's founding back to 1634, rather than the more logical 1789. There seem to be a variety of different editors who are working on it, probably enough to keep it in check. If someone wanted to make this article a project, they could probably attempt a rewrite to make it less spammy. EdJohnston 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia: Mosaic Seal

Tradition holds? Sean McGroarty told me that his brother Brendan and another GU student started this "tradition." Brendan and his friend would leave Mass at Dahlgren Chapel and then hold open the Healy Hall doors that open out to this mosaic seal. They would tell fellow worshipers that if they stepped on the seal that they would not graduate. I would have to guess that this tradition dates to about 1992, given that Sean graduated in '95 and his brother Brendan is slightly older. If I knew how to get in touch with Brendan or Sean, I'd ask for a 'citation.' User:Preserved killick 26 February 2007

I'd say remove this, it doesn't have a reliable source --AW 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any way to verify this. I happen to know Sean McGroarty sort of--he was 2 years ahead of me at Gonzaga--and there is a long-standing tradition there of not stepping on the mosaic seal. However, I don't think there's any way to say someone from Gonzaga, whether it be Sean or anyone else, created this tradition at Georgetown.

Is it urban or suburban?

Interesting debate. It's in a city, but has some grass and such, at least in front of the main building. The rest of the campus is fairly urban though. Thoughts? --AW 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

the college board lists it as Urban. You'd have better luck chaning the article if you could find a source that terms it as "suburban". Note that it's location isn't what makes the campus Urban, nearby Amercian University is termed Suburban, but Georgetown is compact and set up in astyle that is very urban. --Ybbor^T 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Empirical Evidence of Quality of Georgetown's IR Program

For those questioning the quality and/or notability of the international relations program at Georgetown, I would urge you to consult a biennial survey conducted by researchers at the College of William & Mary of 1,100 IR professors who were asked to name what they felt were the top five IR programs at the undergrad, master's and PhD level. Georgetown was 1st for the master's program, 4th at the undergrad level, and 13th for the PhD program. http://www.thehoya.com/news/022707/news5.cfm I think this study is sufficient to cite the fact that Georgetown has unimpeachably, at all levels, one of the best IR programs anywhere. 141.161.109.183 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

Can we get a template to go at the bottom of the page with links to all the different pages relating to Georgetown? It should include the different schools, buildings and athletic facilities, student organizations, traditions, etc. See Cornell University, University of Chicago or UNC-Chapel Hill for examples (scroll to the bottom).

This below is what I can pull out. It's a lot shorter than those examples, as there simply and unfortunately is less about Georgetown.--Patrick 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

Both myself and User:Patrickneil have been moving the trivia factoids into the article and deleting the unimportant ones, which is was Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles says to do. WP:TRIVIA says "As Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles suggests, trivia sections should be avoided in favor of presenting information within the framework of the article's main text. Trivia sections should not simply be wiped away, however, because some items may be useful for integration." which is exactly what we're doing - the section "Quadrangles" has the part about George Washington. The part about John Carroll is really not that important to the article, and it's in his article already. And the part about six shirts is meaningless and does nothing for the article. It's merely an interesting factoid which has nothing to do with anything else. --AW 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Healy Hall clock stuff (which I presume was added by relations of the recent thieves) to the separate Healy Hall page. I note that the article is over 50k, so anything that can be moved to branch off pages should be.--Patrick 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Traditions Section?

I find it troubling and perhaps telling that Georgetown's page still lacks a "Traditions" section, which is common in many other Wikipedia college pages. Someone should consider adding one, although it is understandable that the frequency with which traditions change on the Hilltop might prove troublesome. Do we have any traditions older than the 1970s?

62.94.49.143 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the traditions have Wikipedia:Reliable sources and they're notable, then feel free --AW 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speakers and visitors section

Do we really need this section? Many universities have notable speakers, and it just makes the article longer --AW 20:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I find that the list of campus speakers represents a central Georgetown University identity.

Georgetown students are constantly exposed to some of the biggest names in world leadership, and it is a huge benefit for students getting their education at Georgetown. More than half the list is from people that have visited in just the last year, and the list doesn't include many speakers from the last few months such as Laura Bush (http://www.thehoya.com/news/120506/news1.cfm), Warren Buffett, Mayor Bloomberg, Alan Greenspan and Charles Schwab (http://www.thehoya.com/news/031607/news3.cfm).

If you can name more that one or two other American schools that have as impressive (and recent) of list then you can make a case for it not being notable. While it might be true that other universities, such as George Washington have a few notable speakers, it is the sheer quality and quantity that sets Georgetown apart. 69.255.141.110 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Many, many schools have had presidents and first ladies and UN secretaries and Nobel laureates speak at their graduation ceremonies, as well as congressmen and so on and so forth. I really don't see this as any more notable than at any other university. And as it stands, the article is very long --AW 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how we plan on keeping this perpetually up to date. I think it would be wiser to make generalizations about speakers that have come. I know Prince Charles came over a year ago. What's the time frame we use there? I would shed no tears for the Speakers and visitors section. If you want to look to a higher authority, see the WikiProject page on Universities. They don't mention speakers either, and I can't find another University that does. Sure, we get some pretty awesome speakers, but I'd prefer a line saying: "Georgetown has a very high quality of speaker events" that is referenced somewhere, rather than a long nonsensical list of names.--Patrick 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the notability comes from the fact, as an Georgetown student will tell you, that there are extremely important national/world leaders speaking at Georgetown almost on a weekly basis at times, and they are not simply coming for special events or regular events such as commencement. During the fall term especially just this school year, there definitely was someone on the notability scale of Bill Clinton speaking almost every other week in Gaston Hall. I don't think that is a usual phenomenon at most universities, or even any. 141.161.109.183 05:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, even if the consensus is to keep it, I think there need to be guidelines. Who is important enough to merit a mention? Former prime minister of Norway Kjell Magne Bondevik? What time frame are we dealing with? Robin Williams was there over two years ago I believe. I hope we all agree some cleanup is needed here. My basic sentence would be: Georgetown University is host to speeches from many (heads of foreign countries/religious leaders/US politicians), examples include (Tony Blair/the archbishop of Canterbury/Colin Powell) and (one other). Replace subject and names as needed, but lets not have this long rambling unorganized list.--Patrick 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Qatar Campus

The fact that this article doesn't mention the Qatar campus seems a little strange. http://www3.georgetown.edu/sfs/qatar/ 141.161.96.185 10:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It does. Under the SFS section. It also now links to the Georgetown University at Qatar page.--Patrick 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fire April 30 at 12:28PM

A fire broke out during the late morning/early afternoon at the Georgetown branch of the DC Public Library (Wisconsin Avenue and R Street, NW) The fire began on the roof of the library building. Units reported fire showing from the roof, but there is no roof access from the interior.

At 12:45pm, a second alarm sounded. Units began pulling the ceiling down, though the fire was still through the roof of the building. All hands were operating.

At 12:47om, the DCFD Firefighting Deputy ordered all units are to abandon the building and let the fire burn.

At 12:51pm, DCFD Truck 5 reported that the fire extended to side B of the fire building.

At 12:52pm, DCFD Engine 29 E29 reported a partail roof collapse of the building and extension of the fire to exposure B.

At 12:57, DCFD COMMUNICATIONS reported a third alarm being sounded on the fire. Units reported that the building was in imminent danger of collapse.

(Radio reports from mackel309@adelphia.net)

http://www.trafficland.com/#city/WAS/camera/200140 - Smoke from fire visible from traffic camera at Wisconsin Avenue and Q Street, NW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.55.157 (talk) 15:10, April 30, 2007

Push for GA

Note: I graduated GU in spring 2007. Bias aside, I think it is useful to mention and cite that Georgetown is ranked in the top 25 national universities (United States) by US news. It is a piece of information that a variety of people interested in the university would be interested in seeing, and certainly could be considered encyclopedic. It is a major factor for many applicants.

I've done a number of changes to our page this morning. Most importantly I've tried to build the McDonough School of Business page with some info from this one. I suspect some people will note the other major change, I moved the well stuffed fiction section to the former Founding of Georgetown University page, which I renamed History of Georgetown University. Like the trivia section, this has very questionable value to the page. This is essentially an unrestricted "In popular culture section, which according to Wikipedia should be avoided. I can see integrating the Exorcist in the Campus section, but not all that was in fiction. Rather than delete it, I've hid it. I worry that it is just a matter of time before this section or one like it is recreated with additional "useful" information about Young Indiana Jones et al.

These changes are largely in order to bring the article up to a level where it can be nominated for Good Article Status. Besides eliminating a section that surely would have prevented achieving that, this brought the size of the article below 50k, which make that goal practical, as articles above that size require justification. Thoughts?--Patrick 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have never contributed to this article save for adding two images, but you did a good job cleaning it up. My suggestion to you—in my capacity as one who's been involved in several GA and FA noms—is look at other college articles which have been rated GA, or even FA (since some GAs are quite suspect). From there you'd get a really good sense of how to improve the article. Good luck. Chensiyuan 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I took that advice, and I've read the Cornell University and Duke University pages as the closest examples of featured articles. This resulted in a brutal hacking away at the academics section, though I left the info on the graduate school of arts and sciences and the school for continuing studies because they lack separate pages to move this info to. I rearranged the page, removing the "people section" and letting alumni stand on its own like the other pages, with faculty moving under academics and speakers under student life. I also moved some photos to the sub pages, since it was getting very crowded with photos of Healy Hall.

Lastly, I've nominated the article. While waiting for a reviewer, I'll keep trying to trim the article. That magic length is actually 32k. Even with all I did today, it's still a weighty 41k. Comments? --Patrick 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• • You can save some words with the citations - i.e., in the notable speakers section, rather than provide an individual citation for each speaker, if you can find a citation which says all those speakers have spoken before, that is more economical, seeing that you have quite a few citations in that section alone. Chensiyuan 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Frankly if you count just the readable prose the length is more than fine. I'd be very surprised if someone fails a GA for this due to length concerns. Chensiyuan 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Allow me to make another point. The history section has only a couple of references, but it runs for four rather substantial paragraphs. I understand that there is a separate page for the history of the university, but could you explain why this section does not use many references? It may be a concern. Chensiyuan 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd been avoiding editing them till I have the time to write the full history page, and determine what goes on which page. Anyways, now it's referenced.--Patrick 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Failure and explanation

It's decision time on this one, and unfortunately it must fail for now.

As I was reading it, I was initially going to put a hold on it. But enough small issues accumulated that I just felt it would not easily be rectified with small edits over the next few days.

First, there are missing citations. When an article is referenced as extensively as this, things like "...under his guidance the institution was developed from an academy into a college in 1801" that go by without a footnote stick in the mind. Especially when the daughter history article doesn't mention this, let alone provide one. Note that the first graf under "Profile" makes some citable assertions as well.

Second, the lists disguised as prose. Do we need that long run-on list of current and former faculty? Or the one telling us what companies and institutions are or have been headed by Georgetown graduates? The former could be a separate list article; the latter is just plain unencyclopedic.

Third, some problems with the prose. Some are stylistic: serious writers never refer to the sides in the U.S. Civil War by the compass cardinal points associated with them (It should be "The Union sequestered the campus"). Others are a bit POV-ish or something, like "In any election cycle, a number of state governors will, generally, hold Georgetown degrees" Really?' That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, and sounds slightly boastful.

Fourth is poor organization of the campus section. Its lead sets the reader up for three subsections: the main campus, the law center and the Qatar campus. We get the first, then two subsections on the quads and libraries, then the Law Center, and then ... where's Qatar?

I strongly suggesting following the example of Michigan State University (an FA and one of the best university articles on Wikipedia, if not the best) and other colleges and creating a separate Main Campus of Georgetown University article, where the quads, libraries and other buildings can be discussed in greater detail. There could a separate article on the law center and then a short graf on the Qatar campus, all with {{main}} at the hat. I would also mention basketball in the intro, since it's the other thing most of the US knows GU for. And is it necessry to mention the exact date of the first permanent Jesuit settlement in the American colonies. The year alone would suffice (and along those lines, seriously consider delinking the years per WP:CONTEXT. It just makes the article a little harder to read). Feel free to fix and renom when you think it's ready. Daniel Case 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've waited over a month to cool off. But please, no one from a rival school should ever review this article again. The article follows the template and is indeed based off of Michigan State University. Still, I will calmly make these changes now. Basketball will not be mentioned in the intro and I have no outside sources on the Qatar campus, so there's nothing can be done about that.--Patrick 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure of the merits behind the decision to fail the GAN, but what is clear is the article now looks much much better before you undertook the renovation project. I am rather certain it will pass and become GA if nominated again. And really, if the university is strong in any sport (best determined by way of titles), there cannot be a legitimate dissent to its inclusion in the lead. Considering too, that the lead should at least have something about student life when a big portion of the article is devoted to that aspect. Chensiyuan 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done these things in adding something about basketball, student life, and alumni to the introduction, and I've also renominated the article. I do feel the article received an overly strict review previously, and I'm hoping a new reviewer will use the wikipedia provided guidelines.--Patrick 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

This article is good, but I am placing it on hold for the following reasons:

Lead:

• The lead is not a standalone summary of the article. It is too detailed (e.g. the numbers of students) but it is also missing information. Please carefully read WP:LEAD.

Comprehensiveness

• I cannot believe that I am saying this, but since the Georgetown basketball team is a nationally-known team, shouldn't there be a bit more on it here, even though it has its own page?
• The "Campus" section is not divided into the major campuses, as claimed in the initial sentence about that section. What about Qatar? (I noticed that the previous GA reviewer pointed out this problem.)

Prose: I would suggest that the editors have a good copy editor who has not worked on this article go over it. It could do with a few touch-ups.

EX: The arrival in 1634 of the first permanent Jesuits, and previous establishments in 1640 and 1677 set the precedence of Jesuit education in Maryland, and enabled the founding of a school at Georgetown by January 1789. - Hard to follow.

EX: In terms of life on campus, 97% of Georgetown students are full time students,[46] and 78% live on campus, with first and second year students are required to. - I think you can see the problem.

• There are a lot of wordy sentences.
• Would the renowned "Faculty" and "Alumni" sections work better as lists? It was hard to read as a paragraph and truly appreciate the greatness of Georgetown. :) (Again, the previous reviewer noted this problem.)
• The linking choices in this article are sometimes odd. Links should always be made the first time a place, person or concept appears and should not repeat. Obvious links should be left out. Above all, consistency in linking should be upheld: link dates or not, link names of degrees or not, etc. Think about what would help the reader! Please see here for guidance.

Image:

• The library picture looks much better when you click on it and see it big than small. You might consider replacing it with something a little more accessible.

Please drop me a line when the editors have finished revising the page, and I will re-review it. Feel free to ask me any questions about the review as well. Awadewit | talk 03:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to fix these things. I really need to note about Qatar that I changed the lead for the campus section so that it wasn't considered its own campus. There are no good English sources regarding this campus either. I've seen a photo of it, and it seems to just be one building, but again no sources. Should I remove the reference to it so that it can be GA? I think not, but neither should it be a section or subsection. It also has its own article, which is linked to, but is just a stub. Some of the things that get linked more than once are done instead of doing a "see also School of Foreign Service and School of Nursing & Health Studies and..." which I feel is undesirable. Also, the manual of style does recommend wikilinking important concepts in each subsection. Whole dates are wikilinked so they'll work with the per user settings for date style while just the years are not, as the last reviewer complained it made the article "a little harder to read." I don't quite understand what's wrong with the library photo, it's too small? With regards to the first sentence in the history section it was a bit of a compromise, and you can see the discussion above, but I'll work on it. Thanks for your advice--Patrick 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence about the main campuses is one of the sentences that is unclear and needs to be copy edited. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be "see also's" rather than multiple links within a section. It is aesthetically more pleasing and wiki-convention. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On the dates, I meant to either wikilink all whole dates or not; currently, the article is not consistent. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When the library picture is "thumb" size, it is too small. I initially thought it was a picture of the stacks - I had to click on it to realize that it was supposed to be pretty. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the first sentence in the history section is a compromise is irrelevant; the sentence is still grammatically incorrect and difficult to understand. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a number of those changes tonight, you can see here, but I'm sorry if I'm not understanding your advice, but what does "needs to be copy edited" mean? I suppose I can ask users Chensiyuan and Awiseman to help out here, but what should I ask them for? Also, there are only two whole dates in the article, the date it was founded and the date instruction began, and they can be de-linked if they need to be, but I guess I don't understand the inconsistency there either. Thanks again.--Patrick 05:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not ask anyone to copy edit the article who has worked on it. You need a fresh pair of eyes to read the prose. I did not want to detail all the nit-picky problems (I listed the biggest problem: wordy sentences) and gave a couple of examples of problematic sentences. There are just sentences sprinkled all over the article that need reworking for clarity and grammar. A good copy editor will see these (you can also ask the League of Copyeditors for help. The dates are fine. Awadewit | talk 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I qualify as someone who hasn't really worked on the article at all, so I've gone through and done some copyediting. It's not perfect in terms of syntax and diction yet, but I think I've fixed all the subject-verb stuff, changed US to U.S., took redirects out of the wikilinks, standardized "main campus" over Main Campus, inserted commas, reworded, etc. Hope that helps!

As a side note to the library photo stuff above, I frankly don't think the library section adds anything to the article anyway, other than just to list minutiae. Esrever 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for going over that. I did make a campus only article, and since the library stuff would be more relevant there, I've moved the whole section. Issue avoided.--Patrick 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob. :) Esrever 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please reinsert the library section. Georgetown is a research institution (actually, it is what is called a Research I university), meaning that research is one of its primary goals. The library is a major part of that endeavor. Here are the statistics from the Association of Research Libraries on Georgetown:

• Rank: 59
• Number of volumes: 2,407,125
• Current serials: 28,173
• Total expenditures: $22,184,204
• Permanent staff: 211

This is not insignificant: note that Georgetown spends 22 million dollars on their library holdings. This data is from 2003-4. (Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education "The 2005-6 Almanac" Volume 52, Issue 1, Page 34; here is a link. I don't know if it will work if you don't have a subscription.) Awadewit | talk 05:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this should probably be reinserted as it is significant to this institution.

Please note that there are no "Research I" institutions; that classification went out of date quite some time ago (at least two revisions of the Carnegie system ago). And please don't confuse classifications or taxonomies with missions or goals; you've got them completely reversed. It's classified as a research institution because research is one of its goals, not the other way around as you stated. --ElKevbo 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Carnegie may have replaced its categories, but I've never heard anyone actually use the new ones in casual conversation. Who refers to Georgetown as a "DR Extensive", for example? Also, I did not conclude that Georgetown had research as a goal because of the classification - that was a parenthetical, informative fact. I stated that "Georgetown is a research institution . . . meaning that research is one of its primary goals." This statement does not imply what you say it does; it is merely redundant - I was trying to get the point across. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that no one refers to Georgetown as a "DR Extensive" considering that it's a "Research University (very high research activity)". :) --ElKevbo 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the library information is significant; noting how many books the library has doesn't indicate at all what sort of research is being performed and to what extent. That's information that can be covered elsewhere in a different way. Talking about the libraries' holdings and expenditures strikes me as trivia in the context of this article; it's better in the Campuses article.

Then again, reasonable people can disagree. If you think this article's better with the information, I've certainly got no objections. :) Esrever 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I may have been a bit unclear in my previous statements. I do not assert that the exact text that was removed should be reinserted but that some relevant text about the libraries should be included in this article. I'm sure the text could be improved and cleaned up. I agree that merely listing some statistics (size, number of volumes, etc.) is not very helpful or informative without sufficient context. --ElKevbo 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently Georgetown disagrees with you both. I quote from their website: "The University libraries are the intellectual backbone for research activities at Georgetown. Collectively, seven libraries provide access to 2.4 million volumes and 35,000 print and electronic journals." Most research universities like to brag about their libraries and since graduate students and faculty (if not undergraduates) spend so much time using their resources, it is crucial to mention them (the number of volumes is a good indicator of the comprehensiveness of a library's collection, for example). It would of course be better if the editors bothered to find out what kinds of collections make Georgetown unique (such as some details regarding their "specialized legal, medical, scientific, bioethical, and theological collections"[2]). I was only offering the basics for such a section and proof that it is important. (By the way, you would care a great deal about the library's budget if you had to do serious research there.) Awadewit | talk 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't disagree that libraries are an important part of a university (believe me, I've done plenty of "serious research" in the one at my alma mater). I just don't know that there's enough that's notable about this library system (as it's currently written) to justify including it. Yes, they have 2.4 million volumes and they spent $22 million last year. What's your point? Is that the 3rd largest library collection in the known universe? The 59th? Is that the most money that's been spent on a library in the last 10 years? The number of volumes may be a good indicator of comprehensiveness, but if we're going to assess GU's own comprehensive, it needs a source. "According to The World's Largest Library Factbook, Georgetown's library includes one of the largest medical and bioethical research collections in the United States." My only point in suggesting that it be moved elsewhere was that it distracted from the otherwise well-researched and well-presented information about the university in this article. I don't imagine that the presence of library information is the sort of thing that stands between a B-class and GA-class article, right? Esrever 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, this discussion has just caused me to wonder why there is no discussion of the university's finances in the article (I think I remember only one sentence). What is its endowment? What kind of fundraising is it doing? etc. Shouldn't that be a subsection, at least? Universities are being run like businesses these days (sadly). Awadewit | talk 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A few things, the library information wasn't deleted, just moved to the subarticle, Campuses of Georgetown University, which will need lots of love in the coming months. I would favor a research section, probably under academics above admission. The section from Michigan State is likely far too detailed, but perhaps that would be a place to insert the former trivia item that I once moved to the School of Medicine page about the HPV vaccine. About the finances, Georgetown has a history of being a very poorly run business I do know. The $1B capital campaign was mentioned, and the endowment is listed in the infobox. I have been wondering where I could note that Georgetown University, unlike say Catholic University, technically has no connection with the Roman Catholic Church, other than hosting the Jesuits, and is under a board of directors instead. I could also note the battle over the crucifixes, which most classrooms have. But my concern is, while I really like that the discussion is active, this is a lot of tampering with an article I do feel has met GA qualifications for a while now.--Patrick 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not tampering; even a GA-class article needs improvement. So long as there aren't edit wars going on, it doesn't detract from the stability of the article (at least not in my opinion). Obviously, I'm not the person who's chosen to review it for GAR, of course, so I'll leave it up to Awadewit to assess the imperfections in the article. I was just noting the thing that I thought could be improved (the library information). Esrever 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do the editors want me to re-review the article at this point? Awadewit | talk 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like another day, and I will get another copy edit on it.--Patrick 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. I'm in no rush and good copy editing takes time. Awadewit | talk 05:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. I feel fully comfortable that the edits I've managed to make over the week covers the necessary ground to bring the article to GA status, and also responds to the issues raised above. Either today or tomorrow, the article should be re-reviewed to verify this before the hold status expires. Thanks again for your time and useful suggestions.--Patrick 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA hold, part 2

I would really like to pass this page, but two things must happen.

1. The lead must be expanded while at the same time insignificant details such as the exact day GU was founded need to be taken out. I quote from WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." - Currently the lead is unbalanced; it does not adequately reflect the article.
2. There are no citations in the "Alumni" section. Also, I would think it would be best to say who the alumni are rather than simply their positions. It is a long section to be so vague. Awadewit | talk 07:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've did a little cutting of what I see as extraneous facts in the lead, if someone now wants to do the remainder and add currently unrepesented things in. --Ybbor^Talk 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What would everyone think of just cutting out the alumni section entirely ? Or at least drastically shrinking it (see GA Dartmouth_College#Alumni), GA Princeton_University#Noted_alumni)? --Ybbor^Talk 13:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold, and drastically cut the alumni section. Really, readers should look to the main article for this. --Ybbor^Talk 13:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've tried to work on the lead a bit. I feel like it's still lacking a little something, but I can't figure out what else to say. Someone else want to take a crack at it? Maybe another paragraph about future developments at the school, e.g., future buildings or something? Esrever 14:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor point: Georgetown is able to host a variety of speakers and lecturers each year from around the world, including visting heads of state. - All universities of the caliber of GU can do this; it's not special. Awadewit | talk 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I was trying to come up with something to say about its location in D.C. Like I said, someone else can have a go at it now—the creative juices aren't flowing for me this morning. :) Esrever 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no prerogative to be special, just notable and verifiable. Now if you are disputing whether or not the caliber Georgetown's guest speakers are notable and deserve inclusion in the article, that is different. I have changed it to reflect a more verifiable position, in that it is a priority of the Lecture Fund and Office of Communications to invite these speakers. The alumni now have references and statistics. Dartmouth has a bullet list, which I have always avoided. I've tried to turn lists into coherent, if lengthy, paragraphs. Now they note by name seven of their most important alums. Right now we note 3. Who else deserves this lofty honor?

There is no requirement that the lead distinguish GU, but I would think that the editors would want to do so. When I read a sentence about famous speakers in a lead, I think "so what?" Readers will expect GU to have such opportunities for their students; I don't think that it belongs in a summary since it is common knowledge that major universities attract excellent speakers. The lead is supposed to interest the reader - that statement is not interesting. I won't fail the article on that sentence alone, but I do think that it hurts rather than helps the introduction. I once saw a hotel that advertised itself this way "Clean rooms." If that is all they could say about the hotel, even in an advertisement, that is pretty scary. The same goes for the lead here, in a way. State the most impressive things you can, within the bounds of WP:RS and WP:LEAD. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, the introduction, does it need to be longer? I removed all the detailed information from it last week, per the recommendation. Should specific student groups merit inclusion in the first paragraph? Specific buildings? More about the research and libraries? What I've tried to do with it is summarize each section and subsection, put it in order, and then try to make the sentences flow. Which section most requires balancing? Is it just the phrasing? I worry today's edit may have made it a little boastful, something I've avoided, but this is highlighting exactly what it is that make the school notable and well ranked.--Patrick 21:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, clean rooms. Wish I could say Georgetown had those to advertise. The clubs now noted in the lead are biggest and oldest ones. I spent a lot of time yesterday reading the leads to other universities, so it is now three paragraphs, with location and dates right up front, followed be organization, followed by what makes it notable. The campus sentence isn't particularly notable, though I suppose not ever school has silver LEED certified buildings, but the next one notes that Healy Hall is, in fact, important. I suppose we'll needing a last read through today.--Patrick 16:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just let me know when to re-re-review it. Awadewit | talk 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, go ahead now. I'm not seeing anything else to drastically change. I try to keep from any edits till tonight to give you some time. Thanks again for all your help these last two weeks, the article really has benefited from it.--Patrick 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am passing the article now. Nice work. If you go for FA, more copy editing will be needed and close attention to manual of style issues. Awadewit | talk 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it up with the League of Copyeditors, and will seek a peer review soon. FA can wait, but I'm sure I'll get itchy for the hunt soon. Thanks everyone.--Patrick 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image problem

We've got a problem. A small one, but a problem. Image:Johncarroll.jpg, Image:Healysunset.jpg, Image:Dahlgren.jpg, and Image:Riggslib.jpg (not used in the main article) are all copyrighted, but Georgetown allows their use for any purpose, but only on the web. This essentially fails to satisfy the guidelines of a "free" picture, since you're not allowed to make any derivative works you want; only those on the web. This means 1)The images that are replaceable need to be replaced 2)we need a fair use tag on anything that isn't replaceable. Now, by my estimation, just about everything there is replaceable, and a quick trip around campus with a digital camera should satisfy the problem. I've found a few substitutes on Flickr, but they're all copyrighted, so I'm flickrmailing the authors to see if they'll release them under cc-by-sa (John Caroll, Riggs Library). I'm not having any luck for the Dahlgreen quadrangle, and as far as the Healy sunset image goes, I think we already have a much more illustrative image of Healy (if we really want another, commons has another available at Image:Healy hall georgetown.jpg, but I personally don't think it's worth it, and I'll see about getting this flickr image of Lauinger Library released. Obviously, if we're going for FA, we can't have these types of copyright problems. So about the only one we really need help on is the Dahlgreen quadrangle, if anyone's in the DC area. --Ybbor^Talk 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I've sold all the nicest photos of the campus I've taken to the school because I'm poor like that, but fortunately I usually take two of each shot. There is this one of the quad, but that's a winter photo.--Patrick 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, We're one for one so far. catelinp has graciously provided us a (rather nice) photo of Lauinger Library. I'm uploading it to commons, and placing a speedy tag on the Healy sunset one unless anyone has any objections. --Ybbor^Talk 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this may be a bigger problem than I thought. Image:Healysnow.jpg, Image:White-gravenor.jpg, and Image:Whitegravenor1.jpg also have the same problem. These are mostly used in galleries, so they probably won't be sorely missed, but just putting them here for easy reference. --Ybbor^Talk 15:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've found picture of of the Dahlgren quadrangle. I guess it helps if you spell it right. These two are already under creative commons, but improperly licensed. However, I'm holding out for this one, which is fully copyrighted, but a much nicer shot. --Ybbor^Talk 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Two for Two now. We got Dhalgren Quadrangle. Same process as above. --Ybbor^Talk 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I put some of my personal collection up on the commons. Pick whichever. I did like that Dahlgren one, so I will try to take one like it. Otherwise, I've never found the big one of Healy to be compelling. Also, Gaston has a poor shot as well. The one of John Carroll I will also be sad to loose. --Patrick 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Healy Pink
• 
  Georgetown Key
• 
  Georgetown Riverview
• 
  Georgetown Spires
• 
  Georgetown folliage
• 
  Georgetown Jesuit Residence

I put some of mine in and rearranged things.--Patrick 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for other editors

I have a few quick questions for other editors, that I would like some feedback on.

1. Should the history section be broken into subsections? This would probably be "Founding", "Civil War", and "Expansion". Other universities do this, but they don't always have separate articles.
2. Which other alumni should be listed specifically? Right now only Clinton, Scalia, and Edward Douglass White get mentioned by name. Though I don't want a long list, two or three others, particularly from outside politics, might be appropriate.
3. Should we try to keep the Speakers and visitors section? If so, how? I renamed it "Events" to try and broaden its scope. But I am aware that as it moves toward WP:FAC, someone will challenge the existence of this section, and there needs to be a specific retort ready, should we want to keep it.
4. Should there be a new, separate section on Jesuits? This is something I've thought about. There is no mention of crucifixes in the article, or the fifty-six Jesuits live on campus.[3] Nor is there information about Georgetown's link, or lack there of, to the Roman Catholic church, or their policy on the sale of contraception. I'm not sure what existing section this information could go in. BC does have a Jesuit-Catholic tradition section, but otherwise this is unique to Georgetown.--Patrick 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Admissions Section & Viewbook Reference

I would like to first say that I would really like to see this section grow, considering for a lot of people (somewhere on the order of 14,000), that's where their experience with Georgetown ends ;)

I would like to clarify something though, Patrick. Here you removed a reference I put in a few weeks ago about the undergraduate prospectus, complaining about both redundancy and the lack of an online version. When I put that in, I also added the information about the 35% of students who were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their class. However, you removed the reference without removing the bit about the 35%. The collegeboard link does not specify about those 35%, that comes directly from the viewbook.

I put the reference at the end of the sentence since I'm pretty sure (although I could be wrong) it's bad form to include references halfway though a sentence, rather, it should just be placed at the end (IIRC I've had a few editors move my references when I've tried this). I'm not 100% certain, so I'll look into the MOS, and you might want to do the same. A-ha! Found it! Apparently I should have placed it after a comma. My bad.

As far as not having a weblink, I actually looked before adding the reference, but couldn't find anything. I don't believe there is any burden on us to find web links for reliable sources; the article has other sources that are confined to ink and paper, although I'll grant you those have ISBN numbers. If it matters (I know it doesn't), I have the book in front of me. Anyway, just put the citation back or remove the [uncited] 35% entirely. I'd do it myself, but despite WP:OWNERSHIP, you really know what you're doing, and have done some great work :) Again, I'd really like to see this section grow. I noticed you asked somewhere else for help finding people to work on this "smaller" school. I'd be willing to help (especially before I go back to High School in September, and start filling out the forms to get a first-hand experience of the admissions process ;) ), but as I don't usually get tied down to a single project around here, if you could give me some tasks you think need work, I'd gladly do what I can :). --Ybbor^Talk 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm just artsy, and two reference tags in a row stand out. When I've had that I usually try to make two sentences. But if the citation is necessary, then my bad, it should be put back. I think the prospectus is linked to in the external links section too. My thoughts on the admissions section are this: we probably should make two paragraphs out of it, one with undergraduate and one with graduate information, since they seem to be distinct. Undergraduate should have SAT scores and graduate should have GMAT or LSAT or MCAT scores sourced. And thanks for the compliment, I've just had time to kill this last week on the article. As far as tasks go, I'm really not sure what more needs to be done, which is why I've put it out to try to get ideas from editors here and at other schools. G'luck applying this fall!--Patrick 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the ref back in. The link to the viewbook is a dead link, and IIRC, has been for some time. --Ybbor^Talk 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The section on Admission states "With 16,171 applications and 3,305 admitted for the class of 2011,", how is this possible as they are only now accepting applications for 2008? 71.32.31.181 11:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Thom Henricks

"Class of 2011" are students admitted in 2007. The "Class" refers to when students are expected graduate (after 4 years), not when they enter.--Patrick Ѻ 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Transportation

Lately I've been adding bits about the Metro to many D.C. area universities. I wanted to do the same with Georgetown, but simply putting the stations in the |publictransit = parameter of the infobox seems like a disservice, since there's also the issue of the shuttle buses to and from Rosslyn. I'm not familiar with Georgetown, but I would imagine it has other types of buses to (like to other campuses). I don't suppose someone familiar with the Georgetown Website can direct me to a place where we can write a more complete "transportation" section? (Statistics on the number of students with cars would be great too). --Ybbor^Talk 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Office of Transportation Management runs GUTS buses from campus to both Dupont and Rosslyn metro stations. There is no one public transit service, maybe we could put "Bus", "None", or "Dupont/Rosslyn via GUTS Buses".--Patrick 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, do we want to make this a full sub-section or not? And if so, where should we put it? I'm tihkning either under Campuses or Student Life. --Ybbor^Talk 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that would work in Campus, after describing where the main campus is. So after "are located at the intersection of 37th and O Streets, NW". The alternative is after "with some in Dupont Circle and elsewhere through the region" under Student Life.--Patrick 13:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

User 75.34.31.66 put "Roman Catholic" in the first sentence between "private" and "research university" here. First I don't where to highlight this fact. In the new Jesuit section, I've tried to lay out that Georgetown's connection to the Roman Catholic church is through the Jesuits, and is not Catholic in the way that CUA is. Second, this might be read to sound like Georgetown is private school for researching Roman Catholicism. I will try to find a fix, but would love feedback.--Patrick 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Georgetown is a Roman Catholic university seems to me to be more an identifying characteristic than the fact that it is a research university. Maybe drop the word research in the intro sentence if you are concerned about the phrasing. --Jdurbach 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, now 128.230.74.218 from Syracuse U has changed "Roman Catholic" to "Jesuit." I must at least correct the link to "Society of Jesus." What do we think of this? Jesuit presumes Roman Catholic, and it is more accurate. I'm initially inclined to let this ride out, as I don't think "Roman Catholic" is a great definition.--Patrick Ѻ 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you could rearrange the first sentence to avoid running links or move the word Jesuit elsewhere? I don't like running links, and I like superfluous punctuation even less. Alas I haven't been able to write a version I totally like... about the best I've been able to do is expand the term private university and remove the commas. --kingboyk 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's not an easy sentence to work with. I based the wording off of other University FAs that had the string of wikilinks. "Private Jesuit university" is the wording I like, but it breaks your private university link. If I had to drop a word there right now, I'd probably loose "private" since there are no public Jesuit schools. But I think readers are expecting a definition that says public or private. While you could note that Carroll was in the Jesuits, he wasn't when he founded Georgetown, and didn't rejoin (though he worked closely with them) after the suppression ended. So it gets tricky with the wording. As I've said above, Georgetown isn't funded or governed by the Catholic church or any branch of it, and I try to give a fuller definition in the "Jesuit" section. All this to consider in the word order of the first sentence! Thanks for your help today.--Patrick Ѻ 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, thanks.

Re my "help": You're welcome, and thanks for writing a very comprehensive Featured Article! Congrats on getting the main page, I know from experience (The KLF) how hectic a day it can be! --kingboyk 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) PS I'm surprised you didn't get advanced notice of being FA of the Day (maybe you were slotted in at the last minute?).

Fullstops

Not all thumbs have fullstops after the captions (especially the longer ones). It should be consistent? I'm assuming of course those without are not "complete sentences" per MOS. Chensiyuan 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia had me put the periods in last week for caption that had complete phrases. I'm not so sure this was necessary, but I don't think incomplete phrases should ever have periods. So either all without, some with, but not all with.--Patrick Ѻ 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement of notability of student body in the lead

The reasons I wished to see that assertion cited are that a) it's a pretty bold assertion to say that the student body of any college is noted for anything; b) it sticks out as potential vanity given that students or graduates of the university may well have written the article. I'm entitled to disagree with FACs by the way, and you are entitled to agree with me :) Thanks for sorting it! --kingboyk 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hoya Saxa"

Can someone provide the source, in Latin and Greek, for these two words, please? -The Gnome 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

By "source" do you mean a reference, the translation, or the historical origin? If you mean reference, there is one, from hoyasaxa.com. If you mean translation, I think the hoyasaxa.com page has that too, and do you mean to reference a definition? If you mean the origin of the phrase, that's actually unknown.--Patrick Ѻ 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not find much in the hoyasaxa.com website. But I searched the web a bit more, on the basis of what you wrote and found the following: The word in Greek was originally (h)oia, meaning "those which are" and, when used as an exclamation, has the meaning of admiration and astonishment, i.e. "What [noun]!" The orthography of hoya initially confused me. Saxa is the plural of saxo which means "rock, stone" in Latin. E.g. From Ovid's Ars Amatoria :

Quid magis est durum saxo, quid mollius unda?

Dura tamen molli saxa cavantur aqua.

What is more hard than stone, what is softer than the wave?

Nevertheless, the hard stones are worn away by the soft water.

Perhaps the origin of the term "Hoyas" (and "Hoyasaxa") deserves its own section in the article. For instance, I found in the Washington Post blog the following claim: "The phrase (from GU legend) supposedly originated after the Civil War when the front wall at Gtown stopped an assault by somebody (I don't remember who) - someone shouted "what rocks!"." -The Gnome 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase is supposed to make grammatical sense, or even if its supposed to be directly translatable. I think an expansion of the "What's a hoya?" section at Georgetown Hoyas might be more appropriate than a new section here. Alternatively, I've considered for a while now that there might be enough information and history to warrant a Hoya Saxa article that this, The Hoya, and Georgetown Hoyas could all point to instead of each giving another version of the information. Do you have a link for that blog by the way?--Patrick Ѻ 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard it was something to do with the football team - they held fast and someone called said "What rocks!" I am almost positive there was no Civil War engagement at Georgetown University. --AW (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The link to the blog is this. AW says "there was no Civil War engagement at Georgetown University" but in the entry itself there is a picture of "Union soldiers across the Potomac River from Georgetown University"! -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While there were soldiers stationed on campus for a number of months, and solders in the infirmary for the war, and soldiers (pictured) stationed at the Key Bridge, there was never any civil war engagement at Georgetown. Perhaps the post refers to the recent spirit movie, Georgetown Forever where the armies of the Ivy League are stopped at the stone wall.--Patrick Ѻ 18:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

green space and environment

"Georgetown's three urban campuses feature traditional collegiate architecture and layout, but prize their green spaces and environmental commitment." This sounds like it was written by the university's marketing department.--Gbleem 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, a bit. But if you have a more punchy way of saying "There are some trees and old buildings, and some are environmental" then go for it.--Patrick Ѻ 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use statement

I was suprised to find a featured article with incomplete fair use statements. I would have thought that checking each image would be part of the feature article approval process. But apparently it is not. I did fix one of the images, but one still needs additional fair use statments as it is used on multiple articles. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out which images are lacking FURs? It would save those of us who watch the article from having to click through all of them. Cheers! Esrever 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The one that still needs work is Image:Seal original 200.gif There is a valid fair use statement for this article but not for the other 4 articles that are using the same image. Since the image represents the university as a whole, when it is applied to individual part of the university I was not sure just how to address that issue. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And I agree, the image needs more FURs for the other articles. The problem, of course, (and this is a conversation that probably needs to happen at a higher level) is that I don't know how "fair" the use is in those other articles. Can one fairly use the Georgetown seal in an article about the school of medicine? I'm not sure.

Of course, I'm also of the mind that using university seals is almost never a "fair use", since most universities and their constituent colleges have actual logos for that purpose. Universities tend to be much pickier about where they put their seal than their logos, and I sort of think Wikipedia abuses that. I'm not saying this article's at fault, just that many articles are. Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll add boilerplate FURs for now. Cheers! Esrever 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not have any problem adding the fair use statements for the other image as the one that was there clearly applied to all the linked articles. I just was not confortable in doing the same for the seal, for the reasons you mentionded above. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of GU

This section seems to be missing. Is there any? Surely there must be some criticism of the faculty, curriculum or Catholic heritage. This FA article reads more like a brochure.

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Jesuit section has criticism related to the Christian identity, as does activism. What more should it criticize?--Patrick Ѻ 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead links

The Hoya recently gave their website a much needed revamping. This has however, broken nearly all the 60 some links to Hoya articles from the References section. If anyone has time to give this a shot, please update!--Patrick Ѻ 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose a merger of Georgetown University Student Association into this article. The Georgetown University Student Association article suffers from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose That's a lot of information for the already long article. And I don't think merging solves the issues with the article, but rather pushes them onto an already working page. I'll see what I can do about referencing that next week.--Patrick Ѻ 08:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Patrick, This discussion is relevant to what has gone on with the article Washington University Student Union and the discussion at: Talk:Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Student_Union_merge_proposal. Thanks,--Lmbstl (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that. I see this is a wider and general merge campaign of student association articles. I've added a number of references to the specific GUSA article, and request that it be re-evaluated.--Patrick Ѻ 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Seal original 200.gif

I'd imagine this is public domain (it certainly looks old-timey enough). Can anyone find a reference stating how long it has been in use? Postdlf (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the official site says it's been in use since between 1796 and 1803, but in 1844 was changed to a different version. This version was revived in 1977. See their site. But I don't think it is public domain since it is a logo, which doesn't work like photos, and is still in use.--Patrick Ѻ 00:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, it's clearly public domain based on its age. Whether something is in the public domain is purely a matter of copyright law. Logos can of course be in the public domain, because whether or not it functions as a trademark is a completely different question (and FYI, there's no reason why a photo could not also function as a logo). And Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with trademark issues because we don't use anything as trademarks (except nominatively). Postdlf (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

J. R. McNeill photo needed

Would someone from this university be able to take a photograph of J. R. McNeill? Richard001 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious Heritage

I've had to undo twice now the removal of this: "its religious heritage is used to define the institution". I feel I need to point out why this is wrong. Based on my research, Georgetown has always used religion in how they define themselves. From the school's mission statement: "Georgetown is a Catholic and Jesuit, student-centered research university." The mission and ministry page is used to reference this in the article. I feel that to not mention the importance of religious heritage to the school's published sense of identity would lead to an incomplete article. Further, this belongs in the lead as a summary of "Jesuit heritage" section and because it readies the reader for information in the "History" and "Student life" sections.--Patrick Ѻ 16:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, that the heritage has caused controversy in specific cases at Georgetown. This was removed today under the edit summary "Deleted "...endorsement of Catholic viewpoints has caused controversy.."--the statement should be considered for placement on all Catholic universities' page, but until then, it's selective targeting". I don't believe every Catholic university is by definition controversial. This article is selectively targeting Georgetown because of specific incidents. Take birth control or crucifixes if you like.

However, the main reason that is on the page and that this needs to remain there is because an article can almost never achieve FA status without criticizing the subject in the summary. At some point this article will receive a WP:FAR, and I want it to be ready.--Patrick «» 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

Rankings, where do they go? We haven't had them on the page for some time. I'm not sure they're necessary, and I'm not sure I like giving them legitimacy. Of those, I do prefer the world rankings as being better for Wikipedia's scope. Anyway if we were to include them, where should they go? I removed them from the summary this morning, but think they might go at the end of the History section, somewhere in the first Academics section, or as part of the Admissions section. Thoughts?--Patrick «» 20:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I put them all into the middle of the Admissions section, after the revealed preference ranking. I'm not sure about this "Wall Street Journal ranking". WSJ usually only ranks graduate schools, so this refers to which undergrads are the best feeder schools for their top grad schools.--Patrick «» 21:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bioethics

I gather that Georgetown is reknowned for its bioethics department, called the Center for Clinical Bioethics, and this should really be mentioned at some point. The big deal, however, is that the Georgetown bioethics is consistently against the Vatican bioethics on almost everything, to the point where some in Rome have openly and vigorously questioned Georgetown's Catholic identity. ADM (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fight Song

Quickly about the merging of the fight song on to this page. I wish I knew about this proposal earlier. There is already a mention of the fight song here, and I think bringing in the whole article is both excessive and sloppy. The fight song info would go better on the Georgetown Hoyas page, where there is already a section. The song itself is notable and old enough for its own page, and I expect it would go through either a merge or delete discussion regardless of Wikipedia's centralized discussion.--Patrick «» 03:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

NRHP

I removed Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. from this article. The university itself is not listed on the NRHP, althought it does contribute to the Georgetown Historic District (a National Historic Landmark). Healy Hall (NHL) and the Astronomical Observatory (NRHP) are the only buildings listed as individual properties, so the categories belong on their articles. Just letting fellow editors know in case the topic comes up at some point. APK ain't the baby daddy 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure how that got there.--Patrick «» 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sex week controversy

I noticed that Georgetown was facing criticism for hosting events promoting sexual license, cross-dressing and homosexual ideologies just as Lent begins, the University being accused of promoting only the orthodoxy of “sexual liberation.” [4] Another controversy that is related to Catholic identity is when President Obama covered the IHS symbol when speaking at the university. [5] And too, there is the one about honoring pro-choice politician Joseph Biden. [6] ADM (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Catholic criticism of their pro-choice speakers, including Obama at the end of what is basically the abortion paragraph in the "Jesuit heritage" section. I don't know if Sex Week is important enough to be mentioned. Maybe if its a big deal next year too. The IHS deal is unfortunate, but again I think it needs to be a pattern to work here.--Patrick «» 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)