Jump to content

Talk:St. John's University (New York City)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Sockpuppet and Edit War List

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TiconderogaCCB

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=193167229 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Add a notable alum?

{{editprotected}} I would do this myself, but I can't, but shouldn't Ivan Lee be on the list of notable alumni? World champion fencer and all... Zosimus —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't say whether he should be listed, but this is the type of thing that has to wait until the disputes are settled and the page is unprotected. — Carl (CBM • talk) 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't, it is exactly what the "editprotected" rewuest is for. He is a notable person and should be added, just as another notable alumnus was recently added at my request. DuncanHill 01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Should be up until this weird dispute is resolved. Any article with multiple criticisms inserted in bold, odd claims of the school being notable for the "lack of" various programs, and so on, should be tagged until the issue is resolved. Keeping things to the talk page is no good - the plain visual evidence of a POV dispute, without a warning tag, makes the article (and wikipedia) look kinda ridiculous. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the tag wasn't up because the normal/acceptable version had been reverted to the controversial one. Now, the normal article is up, and the tag thus no longer needed. Huh. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous

True, but the relevance, when another user challenges it, needs to be established, and the facts need to be inserted into the article properly. Regardless of what I may or may not think of the merits of your facts, they were not inserted properly. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Response to "why did you revert my grammar fixes? also, I think it was agreed upon that these do not need to be bold, and are placed in inappropriate places.)" then "no such agreement made. go to discussion page. ". As you can see in the moderator Maru's statement above, "Regardless of what I may or may not think of the merits of your facts, they were not inserted properly." ToadX 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


My thought about the edits made on this page:

"On campus shooting, [1] There has been several claims of racism and prejudice on campus. The President of the school had made comments on the "culture" of the school that needed to be changed."

There is no need for this statement in the first paragraph of this article. The first paragraph gives a general summary of the university itself. Also, this statement was already placed in the demographics portion of the article. There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.


"There has been several claims of racism and prejudice on campus. The President of the school had made comments on the "culture" of the school that needed to be changed."

This statement is incorrect and misleading. The only thing the article states is that some students felt the president of the university "made insensitive remarks by putting the blame on the basketball program’s culture" which some believed to be racist since the basketball players were all black. The president of the university later "backtracked and said his statements were misconstrued. “I did not mean it in terms of ethnicity or religion..." He also met with numerous students to discuss the controversy. There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.


"During the 2004 basketball season, the team was plagued by allegations of misconduct, including a charge of gang rape against 3 players. Legal charges were dropped, and all 3 of the players were dismissed from the school and removed from the team."

This information is incorrect. The players were not dismissed from the university. There were never any legal charges of gang rape. The only thing that happened was that a woman threatened to claim rape unless the players paid her $1000. The players had proof of this extortion from video and audio taken with a digital camera which was brought to the police. The woman was then charged with "criminal attempt at theft by extortion." There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.

"They were dismissed, Abe Keita (sp) for example. He went to attend a school in CT for this reason. I was at the school when this happened and am friends with a friend of his. -Ken, SJU 2005 grad"

"Prospective athletes should be made aware of the on campus shooting of football player who was consequently left paralyzed. This was during the second year of the New Dorm's on campus on the Dormitory parking lot" placed in "Campus Renovations"

I do not think this statement is appropriate. There is no reason to address prospective athletes. This does not really have anything to do with the new campus dorms. Also, a campus shooting is obviously not a campus renovation. This is only an unfortunate event that happened to a St. John's student. This is an article about the university. Do we need to list what happens to every student? There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.

I think all of these statements are inappropriate for this article. This is an article about St. John's University. Would you ever imagine finding these statements in another encyclopedia? These are only minor events that happened to St. John's students. Should we list all of the events that happen to every student that goes to St. John's in this article? How about a summary of every sports game that St. John's plays? I think all of these statements should be removed from this article. However, since there seems to be some controversy with removing them, I have only rephrased them so they contain correct information. There is also no need for these statements to be bold. See the history of edits on this article made on December 24th around 16:12-16:30.

--ToadX

controversial edits

I think that the information is necessary. They occurred and even if you don't think that a student getting shot on campus is important or female students almost being raped there are many parents who do http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2005/12/23/News/Alleged.Rapist.Accepts.Plea.Bargain-1998219.shtml [2] . Prospective athletes as well as students should be aware of the dangers that do exist at the school. St John's is known more for it's athletics more than it's education.

Grady Renalds was dismissed from the university. A deal was made where Elijah Ingram was removed from the university (via withdrawal), and Abe Keita was suspended for the season. He later confessed to receiving funding from the school which was against NCAA regulations. http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/11080/index1.html

I havent even mentioned the Lacrosse team at St John's university and their rape situation.

http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/athletes.html

The president of the school made racial remarks and later retracted them. This though doesn't take away from the fact that he said it. Like if someone says "i hate niggers" and then retracts his statement. It doesn't take away from the fact that he stated it. There have been many claims of blatent racism on the university campus, and the presidents comments is just another one.

You must understand that this is verified information and you must give it a fair hearing. Bobbydoop 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because an event may have occurred does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. There are many campus shootings that happen on campuses all over the world. How many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find where they list them? Likewise, how many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find that list students that have been dismissed from the university or suspended? Should we list all students that get dismissed from a university or suspended? St. John's being known better for athletics than education is your POV. I do not think this is true. Their sports teams aren't even doing that well.

The president of the university never retracted his statement. He only stated that he was misunderstood and his statements may have been misinterpreted. There are not many claims of blatant racism on the university campus. This is also your POV. I do not think this is true. I'm sure there are many other universities that have more racism on them. How many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find that say something like this?

ToadX 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


I am not concerned about the racism on other campus' . I'm concerned about St. John's and the disturbing racial atmosphere that exists there. It was perpetuated by the President as well. There are a few campus shootings, but St. John's has one that was recent as well as a few rapes. The public should be made aware. 24.239.149.9 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As a recent graduate of St. John's I can personally attest to many of the issues at hand. First, St. John's is one of the most diverse universities in the country. Having come from Texas, I can assure you that I have good sense of what a "racist" environment consists of, and St. John's is far from it. It is one of the most culturally, racially, religiously, and ideologically diverse institutions I have ever encountered, and as a result, there is a harmony and beauty to the way all these groups interact and seek to understand one another. Additionally, just like any urban university, there is a risk of external criminal activity around St. John's. However, this is not something unique to the university, as NYU, Columbia, Fordham, or CUNY are subject to the same risks. Scandels, if major, may be worth noting, if presented in a tactful and informative manner, and if based on factual reporting. For instance, it my not be unwise to make brief and tactful mention of the basketball scandel a few years back, but in doing so, it should also note the universities self imposed penalties and recent turn around in the program with the hiring of Norm Roberts. Thirdly, St. John's University, has a duty to promote its level of academics, as does every other academic institution. St. John's has many noteworthy programs, and continues to add faculty, facilities and programs to its already extensive network of resources and opprotunities. I think it should simply be remembered that Wikipedia is a source for information, and not a source for propoganda or dispute. Claims, whether for or against St. John's, should be measured against their importance to the objectives of Wikipedia. -TiconderogaCCB TiconderogaCCB 04:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Do you think there would be a problem if you inserted the fact that GWB's Iraq war has led to the death of >1000 Americans, and that political opponents use this fact in their political attacks and criticism into a section called "Criticism" or "Controversy"? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Does campus shootings belong under campus renovations? ToadX 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"In 1997, A St. John's University professor was attacked and left for dead in her car at a St. John's University Parking lot. [9]."

This statement is patently wrong. The professor was attacked off-campus, by assailants with no affiliation to St. John's University. I covered the story for the Queens Chronicle, but unfortunately they do not keep an archive of old stories so I cannot link. Many of these recent edits are wrong and embarrassing.

JACK FLYNN

Sock puppeting

The poster of the above is also the same person as the other IP and username, he obviously just registered that account now. - posted by ToadX

Ironic, coming from soneone using an IP to get around ablock right now....that is also sockpuppetry and it's been reported. --Gator (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not editing the article. I only want to discuss this issue. I am also not trying to hide my identity like the user above. I have clearly stated that I was ToadX using a different address to post since my other one was blocked. I do not feel this falls under the definition of sock puppet since I am not trying to pose as another user. --ToadX
He's correct there, Gator. Sock puppets are only banned when they are used maliciously or to increase a user's influence. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


please take all talks here Bobbydoop 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop reverting it back to your version of the article. While we discuss it, the article should be kept as normal without your added statements since that additional material is the disputed material. ToadX 02:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, why do you keep reverting my grammar fixes? I fixed some grammar errors such as St. johns to St. John's, and you reverted them just to get your version of the article back. I don't think anyone would object to these grammar fixes. It's obvious you don't really care about this article. ToadX 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This was only after you deleted major portions of the article for no reason. Bobbydoop 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete major portions of the article for no reason. The administrator Maru even said that the information was "not inserted properly" and he/she had removed it before. ToadX 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

.

So if I put a sentance such as "Prospective residents of the United States should be made aware of this president's actions which have caused many people to die in Iraq." in a random place in George Bush's article (such as "2004 Campaign"), put it in bold and put a link under it, and did similarly for hundreds of other articles, there is no problem with that? I would never be blocked, and we would need to discuss this material every time I posted something like that? --posted by toadx

Do you think there would be a problem if you inserted the fact that GWB's Iraq war has led to the death of >1000 Americans, and that political opponents use this fact in their political attacks and criticism into a section called "Criticism" or "Controversy"? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


i dont know how to contribute to the talk page, but i'm trying.

i'm learning how to make contributions. I believe that people should be made aware of the good as well as the bad. I posted links that are very important to many groups, especially minorities. I was also trying to learn how to give the proper citation, i didn't know, but am trying so that's why i placed a direct link. If someone keeps taking it off, what is anyone going to learn?

That is a poor excuse. First of all, you've edited hundreds of articles before (see posts from his IP). Second of all, you should read the policies and guidelines for editing. Disregarding the validity of the statements you have added, they are obviously violating formatting guidelines / style guidelines as well as placement guidelines. ToadX 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ToadX is right, but why waste your breath on this user/loser. He's a kid screwing around and now the administrator has locked him out. OG from LA


The contributions for St johns from Ogstrokes and 24.239.149.9 are the same person. 24.239.149.9 was before registration, and OGstrokes is after registration.


can contributions be made yet? i don't anything is getting done. 24.239.149.9 11:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

How can something be famous for a lack of a program?

This same user has been attacking schools, fraternities, and bus companies at Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, St. Johns, and elsewhere. I'm at my wits end. Tfine80 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is horrible. I wish an admin would step in and remove these ridiculous edits and prevent more edits of this type from happening. ToadX 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


That would take away from necessay contributions to the website. Potential applicants should be made aware if a school has a program or doesn't have one.

How about an insert stating that St. John's doesn't have any an Engineering program, Medical Program, and football team. 

Bobbydoop 19:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a lot of things this school does not have. They (probably) don't have a marine biology major. Should we put that? They (probably) do not have a basket weaving class. Should we put that? Should we list everything they don't have? Also, they do have software engineering programs, and MANY schools do not have medical programs or Division I NCAA football teams. Do we need to list this on every school that does not have them? How many other articles about universities can you find that specifically state they do not have these? ToadX 20:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Computer Science and software engineering are very different. Engineering is a major program. Why don't we agree on putting a section that will allow for this or an advisory warning. You aren't protesting the validity of this information. You simply don't like what is being stated. With the civil right's movements many minorities would be interested in knowing the racial atmosphere that exists at the school. Wouldn't you agree? Bobbydoop 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Software engineering is part of computer science. At almost any university, if someone wanted to study software engineering, they would enroll in a computer science program. Engineering is usually split up into many different subdivisions such as mechanical engineering, software engineering, bioengineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, etc...
However, you really haven't addressed my reasons for excluding information like this from the article. Ignoring whether the statements are true or not, I am saying that even if they are true, statements like that do not belong in any encyclopedia article about a university. There are many other universities that are more diverse than this one that also don't have those programs. Why don't we just list all the programs that this university does not have? The list would be longer than the rest of the article. Adding information about what programs they don't have is ridiculous. Also, the school is not well "known [for a] lack of medical programs".
How about this? Since this school doesn't have a medical program, we should write that "St. John's University does not have a medical program." in the medical article. Just because something is true, does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Like I said before, can you find other encyclopedia articles about universities that state something like this?
ToadX 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Computer science can have software engineering, but that isn't guaranteed. The school is known to not have a medical program. Far away applicants should be made to know this. 24.239.149.9 10:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Universities are comprised of many different programs. While a few institutions are able to offer the maximum array of courses and majors, this is not typically the case. St. John's does not have an engineering program, but neither does Fordham, yet no one would dispute the value of Fordhams academics. Further, even though St. John's lacks an engineering program, it has programs that most universities do not, namely, Pharmacy, Asian Studies, and Actuarial Science. Therefore, a lack of a program is not worth mentioning, and your suggestion that it is a negative reflection of the university is absurd. Would you also make the claim that Princeton has poor academics because it lacks a law school, or that Columbia has poor academics because it lacks a program in Vet Science? Think about it. - TiconderogaCCB

Constructive editing

When making updates to the article, please take care to incorporate changes made by other users rather than simply inserting a preferred version you may have saved locally. My edits to restore deleted information, correct links, make the text more compliant with WP:STYLE, and categorize the article appropriate have been removed several times. I have no particularly strong knowledge or opinion of the assertions made, but will freely observe that both the version of my text incorporating critical text and the version omitting it have zealously overwritten. The recent pattern of editing may result in this article being locked by an administrator. -choster 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) That's fine. OG from LA

The main editor who is making these constant reversions is a vandal using an AOL account. If tempers flare, it is from exhaustion with dealing with him. I'm sure the other editors are willing to cooperate with you. Tfine80 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit on 9-2-06 by TiconderogCCB was to update enrollment information and make a small alteration to the opening paragraph.


As an employee of the university, I would not characterize St. John's as an urban campus. The look and feel of the campus is not much like other NY City campuses. The amount of green space is atypical of NY City campuses. It seems more suburban in appearance. Jamesabenson 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While the the actual campus environment may not seem urban, its location cannot be characterized in any other way. You cannot get more "urban" than Queens, NY. The term suburban would better apply to school such as Hofstra or LIU-Post Oak. I think we could agree that the the setting of St. John's is vastly different from either of these two schools. Though I see your point regarding the campus atmosphere, I think the term is being used to describe its location. - TiconderogaCCB 04:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Centers and Institutes

From the article on Oct 2, 2006: "St. John's University also houses several research centers and institutes. Among them are the Center for Psychological Services and Clinical Studies, the Speech and Hearing Center, the Committee on Latin American and Caribbean Studies, the Vincentian Center for Church and Society, and the Institute for Asian Studies."

A more complete list of centers and institutes would also include the following: Reading and Writing Education Center | Center for Community Services | Center for Professional Education | Center for Teaching and Learning | Institute for Biotechnology | Institute for Writing Studies | Italian Cultural Center

17:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest Catholic University?

DePaul University already claims to be the largest catholic University with 24.000 students, so may be St. John's is the second largest? 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Language altered to "one of the largest" - TiconderogaCCB

Academic Boosterism

Seems to plague this article. As per wiki policy it will be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems

Least Happy Students

St john's university is ranked #6 by the princeton review for least happy students. "Least Happy Students" that lists Stony Brook as #4. http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?categoryID=6&topicID=44



Editing User talk:149.68.148.185 In reponse to your message of

"User talk:66.171.23.248 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, thank you very, very much. Please know that I do not mean to, and I believe I am not, violating Wikipedia policy, which emphasizes contributions and updates with respect for all who contribute. The reason for the changes I've made really reflect only a desire to post content that I hope will provide a full picture of the University. For example, it is generally well known that St. John's offers not only the liberal arts, business, and pharmacy, but also education (its School of Education will celebrate its 100th Anniversary this year) and computer technology programs.

Viewing the content for other universities, the inclusion of a negative statement ("Least Happy Students") high up in this article does seem quite different from the treatment other universities receive. The item in question is actually a dubious item collected from student surveys that often are not updated for several years. (I was able to confirm this with an official at Princeton Review.) Therefore, it seems better to either omit it altogether or to provide an objective but not negative comment.

I deeply appreciate the wonderful, comprehensive work that the other contributors are doing with this article -- and indeed with all articles. I mean only to contribute in an objective way that does add something, that is, a fuller look at the University in question.

Please let me know what you think of this, as I do feel compelled to edit this once again.

Thank you.

````newuser"


The Princeton Review ranking of st. john's university was even quoted in the university student newspaper. http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2006/11/08/News/Sju-Ranked.In.Top.361.By.Princeton.Review-2446723.shtml . Please review academic boosterism and the use of terms like "presitigious" or including strong academic institutions like U of Penn or NYU which are top tier schools. Your ip address is based from St. John'sUniversity and thus will be taken into account. Objective is including 10 ten wired as well as least happy students. A full look at the university includes the good and the bad. thanks.


66.171.23.248 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this information re the "Least Happy Students" out of the lead - where it is a bit of a smack in the face and possibly violates NPOV by being there - down to the "Scandals" section, where it seems more appropriate. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


In following the wikipedia guidleline concerning academic boosting [3] , removal of the words like excellence and prominence have been a problem. Although statements like "least happy students" may appear to be a slap in the face, it is something that the school has actually been ranked in. There are numerous guides including the US News and World Report and the Princeton review being the biggest ones rate and rank accoding to numerous subjective guidelines. Even the school newspaper ranks speaks about St. John's rankings in the newspaper and praises it's inclusion. [4]. The good and the bad gives a fair perspective. Simply stating what is good white washes history and is unencyclopedic. It's like Duke blanking out the lacrosse rape scandal, or UNLV not speaking about the it's NCAA violations. [5] . St. John's university along with stony brook are notable to have included the least happy students.[6]. There has been no removal of the top 10 wireless ranking that St. John' has been given, so there isn't any NPOV violations. Scandals isn't an appropriate place for the st. john's ranking of least happy students. Most likely a rankings portion is needed. Which is what i'll create. thanks . 66.171.23.248 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued Bias in St. John's article

I want to very sincerely appeal to anyone at Wikipedia who can help with a continuing series of blatantly hostile -- in fact, unprecedentedly biased -- entries in the article about St. John's University (NY).

I have followed the discussions, and it seems that someone has continued to prominently place negative -- and inaccurate -- information about St. John's University high up in the article. If Wikipedia's editors and administrators read the profile articles of other U.S. universities and colleges, you will find that absolutely none has any negative information high up in the article, if at all.

Apparently, someone added a sentence about St. John's being ranked by Princeton Review as having the "Least Happy Students." It was removed, and the editor who placed it there complained. In an effort to appear unbiased, a wierd "Rankings" section was created that includes two blatantly negative items with one positive one.

In fact, if you follow the source, you'll see that Princeton Review did NOT have a ranking of "Least Happy Students" -- this was a section in a larger ranking of Best Colleges. (St. John's apparently is in the ranking of 361 Best Colleges. Within this ranking, Princeton Review looked at other criteria. Therefore, the new item about "Least Happy Students" is pulled entirely out of context without any explanation. Further, you will not find this approach in any other university article on Wikipedia.

The person responsible claims that the "Least Happy Student" item is valid because it was in the University's student newspaper; yet there, too, it was part of a larger piece. The new "Rankings" section can only be neutral if it records the fact that the original Princeton Review ranking was actually about something else entirely.

I plan to edit this, but I need to ask Wikipedia to please address this very bizarre situation.

Thank you,

Ryan Moskowitz 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Ryan M.


ryan, did you go to st. john's? because it seems like you didn't read. if you go to the princeton review link you'll see a numerical ranking. rankings are placed high in a number of articles including Vassar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassar_College . the talk section is for a reason. if you like you can simply put up a review for the st. john's article.

68.175.30.133 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&oldid=121775219

About St. John's University

Thank you for your help. I actually would have logged in for this, but my username, etc., is on my home computer (foolish of me, I know) so I am doing this merely from my IP address.

For the past several days, I have made minor edits to the article on St. John's University (NY) to add information I feel provides a fuller, more accurate, though I hope still objective view of the University. Specifically, the first paragraph mentions only a few of the programs the University offers -- liberal arts, business, pharmacy, law -- while the University is also well-known for its education and computer technology programs. I began several days ago editing this to include the info. However, everytime I did this, within a day the paragraph reverted to what it was.

Then, this morning, in the first paragraph, not only were my edits deleted but a new -- and I feel, unprecedented -- statement was added, wholly unlike the first paragraphs of other university articles on Wikipedia: a statement saying that St. John's is cited in Princeton Review's "Least Happy Students." Citing this high up in an article, with no countering view or information, seems strange at best, biased at worst. There is no similar information similarly placed in any other University article I've seen on Wikipedia. Also, it so happens that the actual citation refers to an often debated survey Princeton Review distributes every few years; while true, it is not viewed as remotely fair by most universities. When I changed this, I replaced the overtly negative statement with a positive one about St. John's being on a national ranking for technology excellence.

I am writing because I really am tempted to change this back to my edits, though without the "positive" statement. I almost feel that the other editor included the negative statement as a kind of punishment. (You'll note that the same editor added a prominent "recent news" section about a financial aid controversy, not included in articles about other universities also involved.) Please provide some guidance with this, because the changes to my admittedly new edits do seem a bit overbearing, as if one person owns this article, and even negative, as if punitive.

Thank you.

-- moskow11@optonline.net

Both editors involved seem to be talking to each other civilly on their talk pages: I would encourage them to keep doing that. The offending statement is still in the article, but I've moved it out of the lead, where it was a bit of a slap in the face, and have added some cleanup tags, and have left a comment on the talk to that effect. I think another Assistor - is that a word? - needs to have a look at this, as The Princeton Review does not seem to be an entirely unreliable source. Having said that, the manner in which it is being cited probably violates the external link guideline, as their website requires registration. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


A link to a St. John's school article speaks about the ranking and the 2007 princeton review book can be found at any book store. 68.175.30.133 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Please find where it states top 100 in the nation..

According to U.S. News & World Report, St. John's School of Education is among the top 100 graduate education programs in the U.S. [7] 68.175.30.133 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A Frightening Situation

I will need to ask for Arbitration concerning the St. John's article. I received a "talk" request from an editor who seems to be responsible for exceedingly negative changes to the St. John's University article -- a clear threat to any organization's posting if it's allowed to continue.

I copied his comments, which I'll paste here -- as you'll see, they seem to be extremely angry and biased against the University, claiming that the article had been "pasted" from brochures. The editor in question actually seems unable to realize that creating a prominent "scandal" section, to which he's added several items today, is itself a violation of neutrality. For example, in recent months, crimes have occurred at a number of Universities, and terrible things like the drinking-related death of a student at Rider. Yet no other university in Wikipedia seems plagued by someone obsessed with the notion of creating a blatantly bad image. Please look at the following item I've pasted from my talk section. (The editor's name seems to be . . . UTC?):

please use talk section.

i want neutral opinions given concerning various schools not a whitewash which is what i've seen in numerous places. this article for a while was a copy and paste out of st john's pamphlets. past that i still can't locate where you are talking about with the top 100 . 68.175.30.133 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there someone out there who has appointed himself or herself the sole guardian of the St. John's article. If so, I may need to ask arbitration to take the piece down. Again, compare the current St. John's article -- with negative rankings and scandals -- to other University articles, like NYU, Fordham, etc. Everytime I tried to add the many positive items about St. John's -- its programs, students, positive press, etc. -- this editor seems to have immediately deleted the info.

Is there anyone at Wikipedia who is willing to assume responsibility for curtailing this negative force?

Ryan Moskowitz 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Ryan


you can simply challenge the sources that the information came from. if the information is reliable than request arbitration. 66.171.23.248 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


here are two universities with scandals sections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University#Controversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse 66.171.23.248 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


In regards the comment from the scandals section that follows in brackets: [In 1997, A St. John's University professor was attacked and left for dead in her car at a St. John's University Parking lot. [9].], while initial reports were that Prof. Shoaf was attacked in a University Parking lot, later investigations by the NY Police Dept. confirmed that the attack occurred elsewhere. Jamesabenson 18:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)James Benson, an employee of SJU

there is a clear bias gong on on this article when it is important to note the series of scandals that have occurred at the university over the years. It is historically important to list these details which are regularly removed from posting whenever mentioned. they are not unfactual information sources have been sited from serveral locations and yet the information is continueally deleted each time. this is blatant misrepresentation on the schools credibility that is represented in the article. this website is a sham!!!!


Those choosing to regularly degrade Wikipedia and this article by reverting to biased and insulting articles are asked to cease such action. The "neutral" article that is reverted to demonstrates a fair balance of opinion and should be the building block for the article. Those who wish to list scandals and rankings at the top of the article are clearly trying to discredit the school, instead of provide a forum for information. Rankings and scandals are included in the article and are listed in an appropriate section. I sincerely urge everyone to take time to properly contribute to the article and stop childish games. Until neutrality can be maintained the "neutral" article will continue to override slanderous edits.19:36, 2 May 2007 208.40.192.194 (Talk) (37,661 bytes)

i posted the orginal scandals section in the page. i posted it because it listed important information about the school. listing least happy students at the top of the page along with bolding other items is a total bias. listing scandals that happend is not. that is part of the history of the school. also moving the scandals section higher then i had placed is bias too. it was listed lower on the page as part of extended information involved with SJU. it seems that the bias of favoring the school has been revered with a bias of hating the school. 19:15, 9 May 2007 205.166.218.39 (Talk)


I have edited this page back to the "neutral version" several times. The "neutral version" lists scandels and rankings as their own section toward the bottom of the article, as is typical with other college articles. I agree with the above. Listing scandels and negative rankings next to the summary is unnecessary and bias. These issues should be part of the article, but in an appropriate section. Continue to revert back to the "neutral version" until the slanderous editors cease their childish games. - Ticonderoga

RANKINGS DISCUSSION (May,June 2007)

There was type of resolution reached. Please cease from the personal attacks on others. [8] [9] 66.108.180.176 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


The following was prior discussion on placing rankings (negative & positive) at the TOP of the SJU article. As of 6/25/07 it appears this might have come to resolution. DO NOT REMOVE THE NEGATIVE RANKINGS FROM THE RANKINGS SECTION. The resolution was to keep the rankings, but to place them in an appropriate section further down the article, as opposed to the top of the article where some editors were placing it.-Ticonderoga

academic boosterism seems to plague this article. lets follow wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism DMVGuy 06:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? CAN WE PLEASE DISCUSS THE EDITS TO SJU LIKE ADULTS? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ARTICLE THAT I REVERT TOO, AND YOU MUST RECOGNIZE THAT IT HAS LESS BIAS THAN YOUR VERSION OF THE ARTICLE. I HAVE TRIED TO TAKE THIS TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE BUT YOU HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED. You have refered to the wiki article on "academic boosterism". If you read this article, you would notice a reference to the inappropriate use of rankings to promote the university. It would follow then that using rankings, particularly a subjective ranking at the top of the article, to discredit the university, would be equally inappropriate. This has become absurd. Can we PLEASE use the article I have reverted to as the building block for the SJU article? It has the same information, but more appropriately placed. --TiconderogaCCB 11:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Academic boosterism is not an issue with this article. Issues relative to rankings, scandels, etc, are given proper attention, but are more appropriately placed than the version you reverted to. Please do not revert back to the version that puts "rankings" as the second issue addressed. If you want to discuss changes, do so on this page BEFORE reverting to a version of the article that is intent of slander. 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

are you aware of the meaning of the word slander? please come back with a definition. if something written is truthful it is not slander. rankings according to wikipedia avoid academic boosterism is something that they desire. DMVGuy 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article that lists scandels and rankings has deemed unconstructive and slanderous by this discussion page. The "Neutral Version" should be the building block for the article. The slanderous article that often reverted too, orders its sections: "Rankings", "Recent News", "Scandels", and includes primarily negative information about the university. Under the "Neutral Version" these subjects are still included in the article, but are listed toward the middle to end, where such information belongs. Items such as history, academics, programs, etc., should be listed toward the top of the article, as is the case with most Wikipedia articles concerning universities. Please allow the "Neutral Version" to be the building block for the St. John's article. The back and forth edits have become ridiculous. The "Neutral Version" gives fair acknowledgement of scandels, rankings, etc, but in a more appropriate section, and without slanderous intent. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs)

-- what makes one version more neutral than another? is their a set order as to where informatino is supposed to be set according to wikipedia? slander is a civil charge. is there any information there that isn't true? 64.131.205.111 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

--Then I will use term malicious instead of slanderous. There is not set order that items should be listed, but the order should be gauged against the purpose of the article. What you are doing is similar to stating MLK was adulterous before mentioning he was an incredible civil rights leader. In my version of the article, all your facts are being preserved, but in a more appropriate manner. For the sake of civility, could we please quite this back and forth and just use the "neutral version" as the building block to the St. John's article? - Ticonderoga (Neutral Version advocate)

Civility or downplaying things that go on and went on in the University? The fact remains that the information is true. Order is subjective. 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is neither slanderous nor malicious. It is informative. That is the purpose. Your version is not neutral but pro university. use one IP address, this is ridiculous. I'm going to stop replying if you don't stay consistent. 64.131.205.111 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

--The version I use does not favor the university. If I was intending to distort the truth, I would omit the information entirely. I think it is appropriate to list it, however, it is even more appropriate to place it in a particular section. With negative information listed at the very beginning of the article, the entire article becomes discredited by first time viewers, as a bias is automatically noted. However, with the information listed further down the article, more credit is given to its contents as it appears appropriately placed. I did graduate from St. John's, but I also recognize the need to be upfront and honest about all issues surrounding the university, which is why I do not delete the information. The university has had issues in the past, and those should be made evident to the reader. However, those issues do not define the university, but rather, are associated with it. Things which define the university should be listed first, (academics, founding, demographics, etc), and things associated with it (athletics, alumni, scandels, rankings, etc) should be listed further down the article. I would make the same edit if someone was trying to list the basketball history of SJU before listing its academic profile and basic demographics. I appreciate that a new edit has not yet been made, and I would very much like to see this issue resolved. I do not want to be confrontational. - Ticonderoga (P.S. I travel often, and thus the multiple IP addresses) 5/23/2007 15:00

Rating

We just got a B rating for this article! Which is excellent! More work to do and we'll have a featured article! YoSoyGuapo 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just downgraded it to 'start'-class for several reasons. Firstly, the article is largely unreferenced and the references it has do not use <ref> markup format. The article lacks depth, particularly in the history and academics section. There are too many lists and not enough prose. The inclusion of the Alma Mater may violate copyright. The logos lack fair use rationales. Definitely needs some work, but its a good start. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

JULY 2007, Scandels, Rankings, & Tuition on Top

It appears that some editors have again returned to using Wikipedia improperly by putting scandels, rankings, and tuition at the top of the St. John's article. Per prior discussions, these items may be appropriate for the article, but should be place in a proper section of the article, and NOT at the top. See May/June discussion section. Please use this section of the discussion page to debate the issue before making edits.- --71.240.15.84 03:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (Ticonderoga).


Show me where it says that tuition and rankings shouldn't be placed on top according to wikipedia? May/June discussion is unresolved. UnclePaco 05:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The most salient information about a topic is placed in the introduction to an article. SJU is not primarily known for its scandals or tuition increases; even a NEXIS search on the university would reveal this. This information is appropriate to add to the article, but within context.-choster 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Choster here, although I disagree with some of the change of wording Ticonderoga doing. This is an encyclopedia, not a sensationalist news source. Someguy1221 20:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech has it near the top [10] . Cooper Union has rankings near the top [11]. So does Fordham University [12] as well as Columbine [13] UnclePaco 11:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Virginia Tech & Columbine articles do not (as of the time that I referenced them) refer to rankings in the opening paragraph. The other articles mention rankings in reference to a particular program and do not make them the focal point of the paragraph. Furthermore, all of the articles have a much more extensive opening paragraph than Wikipedia guidelines prefer. In addition, tuition issues are not addressed by any of these articles in the opening section. I feel that you are trying to find a twisted justification for portraying St. John's in a negative light. If there is a particular reason you are upset with the school, lets discuss it, but please do not use this article to exercise your frustrations. All the issues, rankings, scandels, etc, are addressed in the article, and a neutral and unbias approach has been utilized in developing the current version of the article. What can we do to encourage you not to revert back to the other version and work with this article as the template for edits? I would really like to cooperate with you on this issue. --TiconderogaCCB 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alterations to student population and faculty numbers were needed to provide the most current data. Alterations to the rankings section were made to present the data in a more user friendly manner, while still preserving the same information. The grammar in the scandels section was changed because poor language and structure was used prior to the edit. All original information has been preserved and no significant changes were made to content. Please do not revert back to the version of this article that most editors deem inappropriate.--TiconderogaCCB 14:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated history section. Prior to the edit the Academics section and History section shared similar content. Effort was made only to report vital information and not to include any content that would give the illusion of a bias. --TiconderogaCCB 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sju.JPG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale has been applied to the image per request.

Gunman apprehended at st john's campus

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=74000 64.131.205.111 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Material from St. John's Rifle Incident (likely to be deleted): On September 26, 2007, a St. John's University (Queens, New York) student carried a loaded .50 caliber muzzleloading rifle onto the campus. He was wearing a Fred Flintstone mask. He was apprehended and the school was placed on lockdown for three hours.

Current event: Gunman/Lockdown situation, according to the website. http://www.stjohns.edu/emergency and http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_man_with_rifle_nabbed_on_st_johns_univer.html . This may be worthy of entry when resolved. Amphetachronism 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sju.JPG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 08:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

St. John's University strike of 1966-1967

Something about the St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 should go into the history page. I don't think it's a scandal, so I wouldn't put it there. The strike received national attention, and deserves a mention or link. - Tim1965 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable alumni

{{editprotected}} Can John Corvino, professor of Philosophy at Wayne State be added please? DuncanHill 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 20:39, 11/4/2007
Thank you! DuncanHill 20:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stjohnslogo.JPG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sju.JPG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect

I have unprotected this page because it appears the cause the protection has expired. It appears there were some issues with edit warring between users. One of those editors doesn't appear to have edited since shortly after this article was protected. Articles should not remain in a permanent state of protection. There have been very few edits to this article since it was protected so I believe it is time for it to be unprotected. If vandalism or edit warring returns, please request for protection at WP:RFPP.↔NMajdan•talk 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be a need to semi-protect this article again, seeing as a number of anons are back to prove their point. Edit warring is once again occurring, and not everyone is agreeing to consensus-building via the Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented another round of sprotection on the article. It will last 2 weeks. Please try to come to a consensus on the changes before further editing the article. Do not rule out other forms of dispute resolution.↔NMajdan•talk 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Which Saint John?

I've been trying to determine which of the several St. John's this particular school is named after. If anybody knows, this seems like a pretty important piece of information to include in the article. 70.27.109.18 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The patron saint is John the Baptist. There is a fountian of him on the Queens campus. However at the university he is never really mentioned, the focus is more on Vincent de Paul.11:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sille714 (talk • contribs)

St. John the Baptist Tomaquinop (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

When St. John's was still located on Lewis Avenue in Brooklyn, the campus was right next to St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church, which was the official church of the school. There is a nice panoramic sketch of the Brooklyn campus on the St. John's website.[1] When the school moved to Queens, the affiliation between the university and the parish ended. The archives at St. John's have the records of the parish.[2]Johndrobcuny (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Clear now that IP 208.120.47.96 is vandal with agenda

I havent visited this page in several months, but I return to find the same suspiciously determined individual who once went by the name "uconnstud" obsessively degrading this article and attempting to slander the university. It is clear to me that the only two motives for such a consistent and determined behavior over years, one that involves hourly monitoring of this particular article by the perpetrator seven days a week,are 1.personal ax to grind of a MAJOR kind, or 2.someone who is working on behalf of a competing university that is threatend by St. Johns recent rise. I believe the later is more reasonable. Were it merly personal, it would be less consistent as an individual person would not have the time to monitor this article 24/7 and have a life. I believe that a competing regional university has a group of people actually assigned to this article in hopes of harming St. johns rep. We all know the recent construction of campus dorms, which for decades didnt exist, record freshman admissions and increasing school popularity has made the school more competitive. It is clear that 208.120.47.96 is a group of people and not just one guy. And what is going on here is more serious than first thought, especially with the revelation of the facebook slander page. 208.120.47.96 needs to be banned immediately. There is no reason in debating someone whos stated motives are disingenuous and who's true motives are clearly molevolent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.204.165 (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Page on St. John's University, NY

I think that the article about St. John's University, New York was a torpedo job. Whoever wrote it 1. brought the long outdated strike which was going on when I was a student there, using a Time Magazine article for ALL his info. this controversy has no relation to the university, and, because the University is solid Catholic, Time, and the writer obviously tried to blackened the eye of the place. Probably the most offensive part was citing the Time article saying that the university was kind of substandard. I had an excellent education there, and I know plenty of scholars and successful persons who have gone there. In addition, I have six academic degrees form a variety of universities, so I should know what a good education is, not the mention the fact that I taught there for 5 years.

The writer also mis interprets the US News article about rankings of the Business School. The article is in US News' "Best Business Schools" section--how is this "unranked?" The Tobin School of Business is accredited by the American Association of Colleges and Schools of Business, which is the ONLY accreditation for business schools, and it is an accreditation which is hard to get.

Maybe someone will revise the article who is honest and does not have an ax to grind!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wluckey (talk • contribs) 03:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You sound just as biased in the other direction, what, you cannot handle the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.1 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not to merge St. John's University School of Law. No consensus to merge St. John's University (Italy) into St. John's University (New York). -- Bhockey10 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the technical steps of two incomplete merge proposals from St. John's University (Italy) and St. John's University School of Law. Please discuss this here. Note that I do not have an opinion as to the proposals themselves. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I do not think it is appropriate to merge the law school page with the rest of the University page because every other law school in New York (and every else that I checked) maintains a separate wikipedia page.

--206.205.117.10 (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge! They're two separate schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential sources

"Volpe enrolled at St. John's University in 1990" abner louima http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1999/05/26/1999-05-26_a_portrait_of_violence.html#loop1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.58 (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"St. John's is far more secular than it was in 1962, when two students who were married in a civil ceremony were expelled for violating ecclesiastical law."

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/15/nyregion/little-anger-at-sex-case-at-st-john-s.html?scp=5&sq=st. john's university rape&st=nyt&pagewanted=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.58 (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reagan quote

{{3O}} Yes, 3O visitor, I know that third opinions should only be sought after Talk page discussion has come to a standstill. The unregistered editor who apparently disagrees with me refuses to discuss the issue in Talk, only using edit summaries. ElKevbo (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I contend that the Reagan quote currently in the lead is out of place there. It seems to be a piece of trivia purporting to attest to the institution's quality when in fact it comes across as trivial and pandering. ElKevbo (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Another unregistered editor appears to agree with me on this issue but our friend also reverted those edits (and several intervening ones that are unrelated to this and uncontroversial) without discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

St. John's University, NY Vandalism - El Krevbo's and 24.239.153.58's anti-St. John's vitriol

User El Krevbo, likely also user 24.239.153.58, continues to vandalize the page. El Krevbo believes that this community Web page, developed over many years by many people, is owned solely by him. He has a point of view that can not be disputed, and attempts to paint St. John's University in a wholly negative light, giving "warnings" to anyone who may disagree with him. His favorite issue is the St. John's University strike which occurred over 45 years ago. Indeed, it should be mentioned, for it is a historical event, though not highlighted and put in bold. His most-loved source is a Time Magazine piece written almost half a century ago. To illustrate his hatred and point of view, he bolds a quote from the story that says the university does not rank highly. That information is outdated. For comparison, the University of Notre Dame and New York University, two highly-ranked universities today, were not highly-ranked almost fifty years ago.

He also reverts any factual information that may be viewed as positive in the lead. He removes the fact that St. John's University has undergone a major, historical transformation aimed at enrolling students from outside New York. He deletes any reference to a sitting, two-term president visiting the university and rivaling it to Harvard. In the past, he has deleted any information in the lead that mentions its selectivity and rankings.

He deleted information that referenced its journalism degree as being only one of two offered in New York City.

His vandalism is obvious, and he goes as far as to delete any references to St. John's that may be viewed positively on other Wikipedia pages! A minuscule mention to the St. John's journalism program was deleted by him on the "Journalism schools" page. A subsequent revert of his deletion was countered by him burying the program to the bottom of the page, whereas every other new school listed has always been placed at the top.

El Krevbo and his IP addresses are a shame to Wikipedia, which boasts how community members participate in world knowledge. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to such ridiculous and baseless accusations. I'll wait a while more for a third party to respond to the request above before moving ahead with further actions. I can't imagine this ending well for an unregistered editor making verifiably false accusations and refusing to reasonably discuss article content. ElKevbo (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
this guy 97 is a fool. he has no interest in reasonable discussion, making false accusations and attacks! 24.239.153.58 (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Hi! I'm here to offer a third opinion. As per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the lead should be able to "stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Leads should be clear, informative, and to the point, summarising the major topics discussed in the article. An opinion by a former President, while interesting, does little to introduce the reader to the article with a vague statement like the "new Harvard", and as such, should not be included in the lead.

As an aside, I think it's highly exaggerated to label a minor editing dispute as "hatred" or a "shame to Wikipedia". While it is true that Wikipedia encourages all editors to participate, articles need to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines, including the guideline on writing leads.

You can, however, add the the content to the body paragraphs, provided it's presented in a "neutral point of view" with reliable sources to verify any of the claims you've made. The Reagan quote, as an example, can be included under the History section, but only if the source is confirmed to be reliable. Hope that helps!—hkr Laozi speak 06:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks hkr! I would be amenable to having the material in another section provided it's written in a neutral manner, has reliable sourcing, is presented with due weight, etc. ElKevbo (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


The vandal(s) you speak of, formerly IP 208.120.47.96 and uconnstud, has been here for years. I have commented on his questionable behavior multiple times in the past. His motives at this point are clearly malevolent and has gotten even worse and less subtle recently yet for some reason there seems to be no one at wikipedia who is able or willing to check his behavior. It seriously calls into question the intelligence and/or competence of administrators of this wiki. hkr, have you even read the article and compared it to the typical university page on wikipedia?! Your tone toward the vandal(s) seems disturbingly naive at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.204.65 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As a third opinion editor, I have no interest in the subject, I'm merely commenting on the lead and how it adheres to the Manual of Style guidelines. It's absurd to assume that, on a website with millions of articles and a thousand volunteers, every single article will be vigilantly watched. But, from what I can gather, there are two sides, one adding unfavourable content, and the other reverting it. It is true that there may be some "due weight" concerns, but blindly labeling users with a different point of view as a conspiracy of sockpuppets to "vandalise" the article is naive and unwarranted. Digging through the history, it's clear that previous editors from both sides of the debate have engaged in hostility, sockpuppetry, incivility, and edit warring, so I am not here to defend either party. There may be disagreements on the coverage of certain events; that's perfectly fine, but please settle your disputes on the discussion page.
As User:Seraphimblade said: "To be quite clear here: I do not have a position in the content issue, and don't care one bit who's "right" or "wrong". That's what dispute resolution is there for, not for me to decide. My position, however, is that the edit warring needs to stop as of now. Take a polite, civil discussion to the talk page, seek mediation, or put in a content RfC, but it's time to stop the reverting. "--hkr Laozi speak 21:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


hkr, being disinterested in the subject as a partial third party is well and fine, but what is needed and what you and others in your position in the past have lacked that is needed is a rational point of reference in order to make intelligent determinations of malavolent behavior on the part of particular editors. It does no good to merely note that "both sides engage in hostility and incivility" as this is not the substantive issue at hand. As i said before a simple contrast of this article with the typical university page on wikipedia as well as the particular content in dispute should result in a blaring red light regarding the motives of certain editors as being abnormaly negative for such a non political article as this. It is rarely if ever the case that university articles experience any notable level of discord. Assumption of good faith needs to have reasonable limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.204.65 (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your primary concern is one of "due weight". This is a perfectly valid issue, and I have not contested it. But if you want your points to be heard and taken seriously, you must do so intelligently and with more finesse; edit wars, blanket statements on other editors (such as sockpuppetry accusations), rhetorical fallacies, vague outcries of malevolence and vitriol without evidence, do not help your case. Understand that I am not against you or your position, I am only here to offer help. I highly advise that you go through the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:DUE and WP:UNIGUIDE especially), bring up the contentious edits, tackle the disagreements one by one, and discuss it all on the talk page with other editors. This is the only productive way to accomplish anything, not just on this page, but on all of Wikipedia: through civil, sensible discussion and consensus. I don't consider this suggestion to be unreasonable, if you articulate your position cogently, people will listen.--hkr Laozi speak 04:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Journalism undergraduate program

One of the issues that seems to be (bizarrely) contentious is the description of the undergrad journalism program. Can those involved in this dispute please tell us what is going on? I can't seem to follow this since you're all only using edit summaries and not discussing the issue here.

As a reminder, the sentence that seems to be removed and added over and over again is: "Its well-known undergraduate journalism program is also one of only two journalism degrees offered at universities in New York City, along with New York University."

I think at least one edit summary removed this sentence claiming that it's untrue. I poked around a bit and I can't seem to find another undergraduate journalism program in NYC. However, the sentence is unsourced which is problematic not only for the claim of bring one of two programs in the city but also the claim that it's "well-known."

So what's the issue here? Why is this sentence being continually added and removed by multiple editors, all of whom have clearly violated the Three-Revert Rule? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

City College of New York has one too. In addition, almost every other school has some sort of "communications" program, which almost always refers to journalism. DC T•C 17:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I remember looking on CUNY's website this morning and they only listed a graduate program in journalism and an undergrad communications program. I understand the argument that communications programs are a superset of journalism programs but that seems too ORish for my taste. ElKevbo (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I should've read more, it's only a minor. Either way I'm not sure having one of two of a certain program in a certain area is important enough for inclusion. I can't imagine other sources cite the fact a lot when discussing St. John's. DC T•C 18:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's an excellent point and I'd be totally fine with omitting the information on that basis. ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty notable and should definitely been included somewhere. Many colleges/universities have programs that stand out and are so highlighted. It is most definitely notable that St. John's is one of only two schools that offer journalism degrees. Actually, St. John's was the only program in New York City before a few years ago to offer a journalism degree - I know that it meant even more then. CAtruthwatcher (User talk:CAtruthwatcher) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Those are a lot of assertions to make without any evidence... ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A page ought to give information about the subject and tell one about what makes it unique. The New York City page tells how it is unique because it is the largest city in America, for example. Take a look at Harvard University's introduction - it's all about what makes the school unique. The unique St. John's journalism program isn't even in the intro - it's buried at the bottom of Academics. CAtruthwatcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

And I'm still not seeing any evidence that this program is noteworthy beyond your own assertions. How do we know that it's well-known? How do we know that it's one of two programs in NYC? I don't mind there being a sentence mentioning the program in the Academics section but that's only if the information is verifiable - right now it's not. ElKevbo (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bold Lettering - Strike almost 50 years ago

I really do not want to lob accusations about the motives of the individual seeking to bold a statement from a magazine article 45 years ago, so I shall begin differently.

The use of bold lettering from an obscure magazine article from almost half a decade ago is not only an attempt to showcase a point of view, but is against Wikipedia's Bold policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAtruthwatcher (talk • contribs) 03:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:BOLD? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with CAtruthwatcher on this one. Why is the quote in bold? Is that how the MOS says we should include it? I don't think that's right but I'm not an MOS expert. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
However, the quote should not be removed as it's quite notable when Time writes about an institution that doesn't typically receive national coverage. ElKevbo (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the information you keep adding does not belong under the "Rankings" section of this article. Mentioning a quote from Ronald Reagan praising the school is not a "ranking" and may not belong in the article at all. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind it being in rankings but maybe the section should be renamed to "Rankings and reputation" or something like that. I can see how it belongs with the rankings. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's my opinion on all this: My original comment "Did you even read WP:BOLD?" was solely directed to CAtruthwatcher's misuse of a policy. The text should not have been bolded, but it should have been included.
The Reagan quote was largely promotional, especially coming from a St. John's website, and the part about the Harvard article was unsourced.
Maybe the section could be entitled "Acclaim" if the Reagan quote stays. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reagan quote (again)

With respect to the Reagan quote, it most definitely should be included. You think it does not belong in the "Rankings" section? Where does it belong? It is notable and quotable. A sitting president received an honorary doctorate and called the university the "new Harvard," and a subsequent attack from Harvard's newspaper was printed. That is not notable but an obscure magazine piece from almost 50 years ago mentioning a minuscule strike is notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAtruthwatcher (talk • contribs) 03:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's way too long in its current form. The original brief mention that was in the lead was ok, IIRC. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, El Krevbo. The current editors are trying to completely remove it from the page. It is due some mention. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it shouldn't even be listed. every year some college graduation has a speaker who says something positive about a school. does that mean we should place it in every college article? 24.239.153.58 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

sitting presidents speak at many schools. john kennedy spoke at rice, but that does not mean we should have a quote as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_University 24.239.153.58 (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Least Happy Students?

SJU was also named #19 in the less-than-flattering "Professors make themselves scarce" category. This is the second year in a row that the University was included in this list.

In its 2007 edition, Princeton Review also included St. John's in its "Least Happy Students" ranking, a list that the University avoided this year. Just like last year, people have found reason to complain about the rankings. According to Princeton Review, an average of 325 students is surveyed per college campus.

http://www.torchonline.com/2.1251/st-john-s-makes-princeton-review-s-366-best-colleges-1.61741 24.239.153.58 (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Princeton Review has a horrible methodology and shouldn't be included in any college or university article, IMHO. ElKevbo (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 Most Expensive Dorms in the Nation

St. John's ranked number 7! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/02/the-9-most-expensive-dorm_n_777750.html#s172392 24.239.153.58 (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Campus Grotto doesn't seem to be a terribly reliable source of high-quality data. Maybe I'm wrong but I think we shouldn't rely on information published in blogs with no more detailed methodology than "data collected from websites." ElKevbo (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As an alum of SJU, I can honestly say that I wouldn't have recognized the logo listed as the crest as actually being the crest of the university, as opposed to the university shield (previously appearing at the bottom of the info box and also on the page for the School of Law). This is quite simply because SJU does not regularly use this crest in its published materials. It also seems to be apparent that the logo that SJU identifies with is the university shield, as can be seen from even a cursory review of the official St. John's webpages. I have switched the ordering of the images on the info box on this page, as to better illustrate the imagery used by the university and, in light of the existence of multiple St. John's Universities, not to confuse readers who will likely not recognize the crest or associate it with the St. John's University they have sought encyclopedic information regarding. --(talk) 06:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC), edited --Yuristache (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Data

Today, I updated data in the Student Body section from 2007, 2008 and 2009 to the new data available from 2010. It is hard to understand how one could have trouble with such an edit, however we do. User 24.239.153.58 has reverted the data. Does anyone object to 2007, 2008, and 2009 data being replaced with 2010 data? 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It takes 8 years to get 4,6, and 8 year graduation rates. As such 8 years isn't old in this case. [14] 24.239.153.58 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, there is plenty of information on graduation rates present. And even if for some reason you're right on that point, that gives one no reason to delete revisions to an entire section. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is no reason, y did you delete the 4 and 8 year rates? 24.239.153.58 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Even if there is a dispute about the graduation rates, you have not the right to delete all edits on other topics.

2. The six-year rate is the one to which almost all refer. I didn't even know 8-year rates existed. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can revert the edits of a blocked user at any time. So long as they are blocked CATruthseeker! So you didn't know? Where did you graduate from? 24.239.153.58 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That is none of your business, and I suggest you act civil. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The IP actually has a point... so long as the formal block remains in place, s/he is entitled to revert without fear of breaking the rules. I suggest either a unblock or a reblock. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have advised 97.77.103.82 to request unblock on his main account, see User talk:97.77.103.82#warning. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine Article

(Moved from User talk:24.239.153.58)

I was reading the article that was cited [15] that was used for [[16]]. I was wondering where does it say that St. John's is amongst the best Catholic Schools. If you read the article it states that "A half-dozen schools, besides Notre Dame, are outstanding," the half dozen are Georgetown, Holy Cross Fordham, St. Loius, Boston College, and Catholic University. They listed other schools as "A number of other Catholic schools fall into the mass-production or good-small categories" This is where St. John's was listed. I will correct the statement "Time also considered St. John's as one of the best Catholic universities in the nation" since the statement is incorrect. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I read the article very carefully before adding the information. The premise of the article is "top Catholic schools," and while it does not explicitly say "St. John's University is one of the top Catholic schools in the nation," it implies that if there were a list, St. John's would be on it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That is using Original Research. You're implying what the article is saying. It doesn't say that at all. I don't even believe it is implying that. St John's is in the section of mass production or good small categories. that is why for a number of schools afterwards they are giving the number of students that each of them have. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Best Catholic Colleges," it's hardly original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, do you mind if we take this to the St John's talk page and get a 3rd opinion? (where an outside individual makes an opinion on it) 24.239.153.58 (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that would be helpful. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What I see in many articles is that people put down this extravagent history of a school and claims of it being elite. There are over 3000 colleges in the United States and everyone puts down these amazing histories that really isn't amazing just marketing. I know Eagles is NOT guilty of this, but other users are guilty of this. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( whether a quote from a source properly supports a statement in the article (third party posting) ):
After reading the source, the statement appears to be misleading and reaching at best. The IP editor appears to be correct in that the first page of the article specifically talks about the best Catholic colleges, while the rest of the article is devoted to listing the other Catholic colleges it looked at. Given the age of the source, the date of when Time made the statement (February 1962) should be included and rather than saying the school is the best, it should be stated that the school ranked as "good-small".—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, how's this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Better, but I would change the wording to give it more context, "top Catholic universities", top regarding what? How are they measuring, when was the measurement taken? What was the sample size? Did they evaluate ALL catholic universities of the time? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have clarified here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, that appears to work. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


http://articles.nydailynews.com/2004-02-08/sports/18261760_1_erick-barkley-college-basketball-johnnies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.101.9 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


olympian Rowan Barrett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.101.9 (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:St._John's_Red_Storm_men's_basketball_players

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_St._John%27s_Red_Storm_men%27s_basketball_team

archive.stjohns.edu/pls/portal30/retreive_img_data?img_id=3283

http://articles.nydailynews.com/1996-02-23/sports/17997758_1_lopez-and-hamilton-red-storm-tarik-turner http://johnnyjungle.com/columns/over-the-airwaves/amir-garrett-enrolls-at-bridgton-academy-will-work-toward-eligibility/ http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/27/sports/college-basketball-little-joy-for-mahoney-as-st-john-s-is-defeated.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/luke_winn/06/06/amir-garrett-st-johns-mlb/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/04/sports/basketball-st-john-s-gets-shot-of-needed-confidence.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm http://www.zagsblog.com/2011/11/30/johnnies-to-face-no-1-kentucky-without-lavin/ http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/09/01/sports/index.html http://www.basketball.ca/en/hm/inside.php?sid=1&id=2804 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-03-15/sports/9803150296_1_dr-turner-rick-turner-red-storm http://johnnyjungle.com/forum/index.php http://redmen.net/index.php?option=com_kunena&view=listcat&Itemid=603 http://www.redstormsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/041206aab.html http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/11080/index3.html http://www.fibaeurope.com/cid_KNce8jInH7Qj1EsyH5rjn2.teamID_92444.compID_BYg5Rb55Jw-G5I3MZ6JB01.season_2011.roundID_7936.playerID_81665.html http://blogs.app.com/insidethepaint/2009/07/08/boys-qarraan-calhoun-to-forgo-senior-season-turn-pro/ http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/27034/derwin-kitchen http://www.sportando.net/eng/europe/israel/29696/maccabi_rishon_lezion_lands_derwin_kitchen.html http://www.mlive.com/sports/saginaw/index.ssf/2011/10/larry_wright_gets_opportunity.html

http://www.redstormsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/041206aab.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.101.9 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.rumbleinthegarden.com/2011/12/28/2665241/st-johns-red-storm-moe-harkless-32-points-providence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.101.9 (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


http://espn.go.com/classic/s/basketball_scandals_molinas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.101.9 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

MFD

There's currently an MFD for a User hosted "compromise draft" happening here. I don't know if this draft would be useful to y'all, but if it's not, it's likely that it will be deleted per WP:STALEDRAFT. Achowat (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/29/sports/a-dream-come-true-though-not-exactly-the-way-he-thought.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.102.181 (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0610F93454157A93CBA9178AD95F428785F9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 November 2012

Under Fraternities and Sororities St. John’s Fraternities & Sororities are governed by three councils which are part of our Student Government Inc. (SGI). The councils are our African & Latino Fraternal/Sororal Alliance, Interfraternity Council, and Panhellenic Council. A delegate from each fraternity or sorority attends their respective council meetings and is eligible for nomination to an executive board or appointed position. Each organization and council is given a budget from SGI and the opportunity to apply for funding for conventions and events through a special allocation budget. Applications are heard every other week by the Inter-Greek Council. Each organization has a national, graduate, or alumni advisor, depending on the structure of the organization. This advisor attends meetings and events regularly, and assists with national policy and any other issues that may arise. Fraternities and sororities also have faculty advisors that serve as a resource for academic and on campus support. In addition to the advisors that the organizations appoint, student affairs has a team of professional staff and graduate assistants. These staff members support each organization and council in their daily activities, leadership training, event planning, and the many other facets of Greek life.

The Panhellenic Council consists of 7 sororities, Gamma Phi Beta, Delta Phi Epsilon, Theta Phi Alpha, Phi Sigma Sigma, Kappa Phi Lambda, Kappa Phi Beta, and Lambda Phi. The Inter-Fraternity Council consists of FFFfraternities: Sigma Chi Beta, Alpha Phi Delta, Tau Kappa Epsilon, Kappa Sigma, Pi Kappa Phi, Phi Delta Chi, Pi Delta Psi, Iota Nu Delta, Lambda Phi Epsilon, and Sigma Beta Rho. Ametoplease (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now. Can you provide reliable sources for all of this information, and clean it up a little bit in terms of flow? If you do that reopen the request by changing answered=yes to answered=no and I'll come take another look. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Update endowment-change it from $267 million to $350.5 million.

Source: [3]

Thanks,--Pockekes (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ "Brooklyn Campus History," 150th Anniversary Digital History Exhibit, St. John's University.
  2. ^ "Records of the Church of St. John the Baptist," St. John's University Archives.
  3. ^ "U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year 2012 Endowment Market Value and Percentage Change in Endowment Market Value from FY 2011 to FY 2012" (PDF). 2012 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments. National Association of College and University Business Officers. 2012. p. 2. Retrieved March 14, 2013.
 Done -- Dianna (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request RE: New Brunswick Theological Seminary

I would ask the primary editors of this article to find an appropriate place to mention that the New Brunswick Theological Seminary offers courses and operates a satellite on the SJU campus. NBTS mentions SJU three times, SJU mentions NBTS zero. I would find a place to mention it, but out of courtesy ask that primary editors of the article to determine where the information best fits within their work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mike Fransesca = NOT notable alum??

Can someone explain just how it is that Mike Fransesca does not meet the cut for the notable alumni section? Just about everyone growing up in the NYC metro knows him from his legendary days with Mike and the Mad Dog and from his enormously popular current show as well.

In 2012, Francesa was ranked No. 1 as the 100 most important sports talk radio hosts in America by Talkers Magazine.

http://www.talkers.com/2012-talkers-heavy-hundred-of-sports-talk/

--74.105.33.46 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/13416/stjohnsrape.pdf?sequence=5 CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Least happy" rankings

Can the editors (e.g., Redmen007, BlackAmerican) who are edit warring over the inclusion of material related to the university's "Least happy" rankings paragraph please find a compromise? If not, I imagine that editors will soon be blocked and the article may be protected from editing by anyone. ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Need for updating

The whole entry is seriously out of date, except that it does list the current president. The scandals of the previous presidential administration are not even mentioned.2601:1C0:6A01:F14:1C1B:DA39:FD9C:A28D (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on St. John's University (New York City). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on St. John's University (New York City). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St. John's University (New York City). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the red rock on campus?

What is that red rock on the campus? Pete unseth (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

University Based in Queens, Not Manhattan

The university is based in Queens, as the summary says, but for some (probably erroneous) reason, it is listed in the InfoBox as Manhattan. It may be that the editor who contributed this, does not know the difference between Queens being listed as Queens, and Manhattan being listed as "New York," thinking that they are the same thing. NY, NY means Manhattan, NY. It is not inclusive of Queens or Brooklyn, or any other of the city's boroughs. I am going to make the change in the Infobox, as this appears to be an error. Even their website lists an address in Queens to contact admissions. The campus in Manhattan is tiny and not a main campus.Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The location field calls for the city, which is the city of New York. Are you asserting that Queens is a separate city from New York? —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
And for comparison, Fordham University is listed as in NYC, not the Bronx. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rivalries

Curious on thoughts of editing/reducing rivalries. I do not think it is accurate to list all the Big East schools, most of whom St. John's has little history with. Suggest the following to make the list:

  • Seton Hall University (definitely needed)
  • Georgetown University (definitely needed, Ewing/Mullin era)
  • Fordham University (inner-city rivalry)
  • Syracuse University (Old Big east rivalry, interstate)
  • DePaul University (Sister Vincentian school, big east)

TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in St. John's University (New York City)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of St. John's University (New York City)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Forbes":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple Edits and Organization 2020 - Aimed to increase Wiki Class Level

Over the course of two to three days I made multiple edits to the St. John's page. Almost all content remained intact, and the primary objective was to organize information on the page with headers while also updating statistical numbers. Some additions were made to diversity in the student section language, and older uncited sentences were deleted. The aim was to keep almost all content intact, with minor grammatical changes, but move it around to areas that made sense in a more structured format. The aim was to update the status of St. John's on wiki while providing more readability on the page. I welcome all additions, corrections, etc. This is by no means perfect, but hopefully will be accepted as a structure for edits going forward. TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._John%27s_University_(New_York_City)/Archive_1&oldid=1170877545"