Talk:Georgetown University/Archive 1

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

message: http://www.modelun.org/gira/index.html is listed as an organization under Georgetown University however the front page of the site says:
"GIRA is not affiliated with Georgetown University" 
not sure if I am missing something but any confirmations/digressions would be nice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.182.176 (talk • contribs) 
*Answer: first off, possibly b/c of your comments, GIRA was correctly removed from this page.  GIRA goes out of its way to say that it's not affiliated with Georgetown b/c of legal liability (they host large conferences).  The confusion is understandible b/c its membership is almost 100% current Georgetown undergrads, and b/c its board overlaps with that of the Georgetown International Relations Club, which is a University-sponsored club.--M@rēino 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIRA 

message: I removed the following passage from the history section due to the nature of the paragraph referring to a specific faculty appointment. This information is best included in a section about Georgetown University's faculty and not one intended to highlight the history of the institution. In addition, this information only refers to faculty that have joined the School of Foreign Service and should be balanced with the major appointments in the University's other schools.
During the Fall 2004 semester, Georgetown announced the appointment of former-CIA director George Tenet to the University teaching staff. Tenet joined other distinguished Georgetown faculty including former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Ambassador at Large  Robert L. Gallucci, and former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar. - unsigned comments by 141.161.121.52
:I moved the paragraph about faculty to a "Faculty" subheading.  Feel free to improve it. --Aude 16:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added Andrew Natsios (USAID Head Administrator) to the list of faculty. Tlaktan 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of a Faculty Section 

message: This is mostly an aesthetic issue, but it has bothered me for months: couldn't we have a picture other than that horrid law campus shot for the introduction of the main campus? Maybe an internal shot of Dalghren quad or the Main quad in bloom or something of that nature ... it's a bit discordant to be speaking of fountains, cemetaries, trees, flowers, and ivy, and to have a shot of a concrete monster heading up the article.
All due respect to the Law School graduates, of course ;) But I know there are better shots out there ...
*I can try to take something of Dahlgren.  Maybe if we get a bit of snow or something.  Otherwise I guess I'll wait till spring. Fightindaman 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved the law center pict. to the pgph about the law center, and swapped position with the healy hall img.  Of course, when we get better pictures, we can arrange them better.  Or you think the current article can be better, be bold and go ahead and change it. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I swapped a picture of Dahlgren quad for the law center photo and moved the two pics around a bit. Fightindaman 07:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is looking much better; the Dahlgren shot is really well framed. I wish I had better photos to offer, but I'm pulling from only a few that I took while at GU in 2003. Didn't have a good camera then. SCUMATT 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual Appeal of Picture By Campus Section is ... Somewhat Lacking 

message: Tulane's admission standards, quality of alumni and student achievement , and educational resources are not comparable to Georgetown's. Tulane's acceptance rate is double that of Georgetown and its standardized test scores lag by over a hundred to hundred and fifty points, the student body at G.U. (See any reputable college guide such as Princeton Review, Fiske or US News.) Please, lets not have a statement that is not supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs) 
:: This is credited. Comparisons should be based on the schools that are listed in such guides as overlap schools either academically or in terms of students they attract. Tulane falls into neither group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.190.154 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with Tulane does not apply

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

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

message: I read something about the 'Center for Muslim Christian Understanding', a gift of 20 million dollar from Alwaleed bin Talal for islamic courses and the removal of an evangelical student group from campus. I didn't read stuff about that in the article. Does somebody know more? SietskeEN 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Islamic studies program did recently receive a $20 million donation from said prince, and the name was changed to what you have listed above.  The second part is a bit off; there was an evangelical Christian group which the Campus Ministry was affiliated with, that it recently broke ties with. Fightindaman 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Center for Muslim Christian Understanding' 

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

message: I've watched this page bounce around over the last 2 weeks from very different versions of the history.  I recognize the strong attachment to the 1634 version of events, and the desire that this should be noted, and while I think my school is better than those which happen to be older in America than it, I don't feel the need to pretend that it is something which it is not.  1789 is the date the school wants, it's what they announce, it's what's in the other encyclopedias, and it's what needs to be in this one.
What could be noted is that the date was considered to be 1788 until the 1840 yearbook, when it for no good reason was misprinted.  However, since the university has chosen to recognize the date of the land deed as its foundation, and not of the slightly earlier chartering date, as is more commonly the case, the page should reflect this.
I moved the 1643 information to a separate page, currently "Founding of Georgetown University", and will add info about the events in 1789 tomorrow.  I hope to extend this page to a full History of Georgetown University page one day, since the history section is already lengthy without much of what it could contain.--Patrickneil 05:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This 1643 thing seems odd to me. Maybe they planned on founding a school here, but Wikipedia says that Georgetown (the town) was first settled in 1696. --AW 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1634 is the arrival of the first Jesuits, and while they apparently had permission to found "a" university, "Georgetown University," the first of many Jesuit universities, it doesn't have substance until the 1780s.  This new page tries to rely on strict fact, and I'd like to leave the "controversy" off of the main Georgetown page.--Patrickneil 04:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed --AW 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: So I picked up the book.  I direct you to page 5: "We are perfectly satisfied to keep our date of foundation as 1789, but we do hold that if the First Founders of Georgetown had been granted the same considerations and privilages that were given other institutions established under different religious auspices, the foundation of Georgetown College would be 1634- it is Georgetown's de jure."  First, he recognizes 1789.  Second, his lament, similar to yours, that other schools get to count older dates sounds like "since you get to lie, so do we."  Again, let Penn lie on their page, and ours be truthful.  Third, I understand his point that without the prior schools, you don't get Georgetown, but why not then extend it to where White himself was educated?  What it tells me is that four schools which preceded the College could be separate pages on Wikipedia.  You can list this "St. Mary's/St. Inigoes" school as opening shortly in 1634, then from 1640 to its closing in 1645.  The next Jesuit school in Maryland opened 1677 in Newtown Manor and closed in 1703.  The next in Bohemia Manor in 1745, which closed "several years later."  Nevils tries hard to connect these schools into one organization, though I'm just not convinced.  However I will try to further integrate this information into the Founding of Georgetown University page.--Patrickneil 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, I agree with Patrickneil on this. We shouldn't be looking at other universities, just when the actual school was founded. As he points, founding a school which closes, then another which and closes doesn't seem to me to be Georgetown --AW 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevbo's edits are ok, but I think it should have more caveats - that nobody settled Georgetown the town until 1696, and the part about the schools closing. --AW 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise caution in adding caveats of our own making - that way lies original research...  --ElKevbo 17:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The following is adapted from a posting at the WP:COI/N noticeboard, which is used to handle complaints about editors who may have a conflict of interest. For example, college employees who might be writing about their own college. Those interested may refer to that noticeboard to find the complete entry  here.  Back in January, User:Awiseman made this posting:
The IP user User:68.98.161.246 has made more than 300 edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University and Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in a positive nature. I think the IP should be checked to see if it comes from the university. For example, there has been a discussion at the School of Foreign Service article about academic boosterism by the user. Here are their contributions: Special:Contributions/68.98.161.246. Another similar IP user has made similar boosteristic edits, Special:Contributions/68.49.15.185. Thanks --AW 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comment on the quality of this article (after looking into a question about possible COI postings by employees) 

message: Tradition holds?  Sean McGroarty told me that his brother Brendan and another GU student started this "tradition."  Brendan and his friend would leave Mass at Dahlgren Chapel and then hold open the Healy Hall doors that open out to this mosaic seal.  They would tell fellow worshipers that if they stepped on the seal that they would not graduate.  I would have to guess that this tradition dates to about 1992, given that Sean graduated in '95 and his brother Brendan is slightly older.  If I knew how to get in touch with Brendan or Sean, I'd ask for a 'citation.'  User:Preserved killick  26 February 2007
:I'd say remove this, it doesn't have a reliable source --AW 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia: Mosaic Seal

message: Interesting debate. It's in a city, but has some grass and such, at least in front of the main building. The rest of the campus is fairly urban though. Thoughts? --AW 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the college board lists it as Urban. You'd have better luck chaning the article if you could find a source that terms it as "suburban". Note that it's location isn't what makes the campus Urban, nearby Amercian University is termed Suburban, but Georgetown is compact and set up in astyle that is very urban. --YbborT 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it urban or suburban? 

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

message: Can we get a template to go at the bottom of the page with links to all the different pages relating to Georgetown?  It should include the different schools, buildings and athletic facilities, student organizations, traditions, etc.  See Cornell University, University of Chicago or UNC-Chapel Hill for examples (scroll to the bottom).
:This below is what I can pull out.  It's a lot shorter than those examples, as there simply and unfortunately is less about Georgetown.--Patrick 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Both myself and User:Patrickneil have been moving the trivia factoids into the article and deleting the unimportant ones, which is was Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles says to do. WP:TRIVIA says "As Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles suggests, trivia sections should be avoided in favor of presenting information within the framework of the article's main text. Trivia sections should not simply be wiped away, however, because some items may be useful for integration." which is exactly what we're doing - the section "Quadrangles" has the part about George Washington. The part about John Carroll is really not that important to the article, and it's in his article already. And the part about six shirts is meaningless and does nothing for the article. It's merely an interesting factoid which has nothing to do with anything else. --AW 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the Healy Hall clock stuff (which I presume was added by relations of the recent thieves) to the separate Healy Hall page.  I note that the article is over 50k, so anything that can be moved to branch off pages should be.--Patrick 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: I find it troubling and perhaps telling that Georgetown's page still lacks a "Traditions" section, which is common in many other Wikipedia college pages. Someone should consider adding one, although it is understandable that the frequency with which traditions change on the Hilltop might prove troublesome. Do we have any traditions older than the 1970s?
62.94.49.143 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the traditions have Wikipedia:Reliable sources and they're notable, then feel free --AW 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditions Section? 

message: The fact that this article doesn't mention the Qatar campus seems a little strange.  http://www3.georgetown.edu/sfs/qatar/ 141.161.96.185 10:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does.  Under the SFS section.  It also now links to the Georgetown University at Qatar page.--Patrick 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qatar Campus 

message: Note: I graduated GU in spring 2007. Bias aside, I think it is useful to mention and cite that Georgetown is ranked in the top 25 national universities (United States) by US news. It is a piece of information that a variety of people interested in the university would be interested in seeing, and certainly could be considered encyclopedic. It is a major factor for many applicants.
****
I've done a number of changes to our page this morning.  Most importantly I've tried to build the McDonough School of Business page with some info from this one.  I suspect some people will note the other major change, I moved the well stuffed fiction section to the former Founding of Georgetown University page, which I renamed History of Georgetown University.  Like the trivia section, this has very questionable value to the page.  This is essentially an unrestricted "In popular culture section, which according to Wikipedia should be avoided.  I can see integrating the Exorcist in the Campus section, but not all that was in fiction.  Rather than delete it, I've hid it.  I worry that it is just a matter of time before this section or one like it is recreated with additional "useful" information about Young Indiana Jones et al.
These changes are largely in order to bring the article up to a level where it can be nominated for Good Article Status.  Besides eliminating a section that surely would have prevented achieving that, this brought the size of the article below 50k, which make that goal practical, as articles above that size require justification.  Thoughts?--Patrick 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I'd been avoiding editing them till I have the time to write the full history page, and determine what goes on which page.  Anyways, now it's referenced.--Patrick 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Push for GA 

message: It's decision time on this one, and unfortunately it must fail for now.
As I was reading it, I was initially going to put a hold on it. But enough small issues accumulated that I just felt it would not easily be rectified with small edits over the next few days.
First, there are missing citations. When an article is referenced as extensively as this, things like "...under his guidance the institution was developed from an academy into a college in 1801" that go by without a footnote stick in the mind. Especially when the daughter history article doesn't mention this, let alone provide one. Note that the first graf under "Profile" makes some citable assertions as well.
Second, the lists disguised as prose. Do we need that long run-on list of current and former faculty? Or the one telling us what companies and institutions are or have been headed by Georgetown graduates? The former could be a separate list article; the latter is just plain unencyclopedic.
Third, some problems with the prose. Some are stylistic: serious writers never refer to the sides in the U.S. Civil War by the compass cardinal points associated with them (It should be "The Union sequestered the campus"). Others are a bit POV-ish or something, like "In any election cycle, a number of state governors will, generally, hold Georgetown degrees" Really?' That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, and sounds slightly boastful.
Fourth is poor organization of the campus section. Its lead sets the reader up for three subsections: the main campus, the law center and the Qatar campus. We get the first, then two subsections on the quads and libraries, then the Law Center, and then ... where's Qatar?I strongly suggesting following the example of Michigan State University (an FA and one of the best university articles on Wikipedia, if not the best) and other colleges and creating a separate Main Campus of Georgetown University article, where the quads, libraries and other buildings can be discussed in greater detail. There could a separate article on the law center and then a short graf on the Qatar campus, all with  at the hat.
I would also mention basketball in the intro, since it's the other thing most of the US knows GU for. And is it necessry to mention the exact date of the first permanent Jesuit settlement in the American colonies. The year alone would suffice (and along those lines, seriously consider delinking the years per WP:CONTEXT. It just makes the article a little harder to read). 
Feel free to fix and renom when you think it's ready. Daniel Case 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've waited over a month to cool off.  But please, no one from a rival school should ever review this article again.  The article follows the template and is indeed based off of Michigan State University.  Still, I will calmly make these changes now.  Basketball will not be mentioned in the intro and I have no outside sources on the Qatar campus, so there's nothing can be done about that.--Patrick 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure of the merits behind the decision to fail the GAN, but what is clear is the article now looks much much better before you undertook the renovation project. I am rather certain it will pass and become GA if nominated again. And really, if the university is strong in any sport (best determined by way of titles), there cannot be a legitimate dissent to its inclusion in the lead. Considering too, that the lead should at least have something about student life when a big portion of the article is devoted to that aspect. Chensiyuan 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done these things in adding something about basketball, student life, and alumni to the introduction, and I've also renominated the article. I do feel the article received an overly strict review previously, and I'm hoping a new reviewer will use the wikipedia provided guidelines.--Patrick 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failure and explanation

message: We've got a problem. A small one, but a problem. :Image:Johncarroll.jpg, :Image:Healysunset.jpg, :Image:Dahlgren.jpg, and :Image:Riggslib.jpg (not used in the main article) are all copyrighted, but Georgetown allows their use for any purpose, but only on the web. This essentially fails to satisfy the guidelines of a "free" picture, since you're not allowed to make any derivative works you want; only those on the web. This means 1)The images that are replaceable need to be replaced 2)we need a fair use tag on anything that isn't replaceable. Now, by my estimation, just about everything there is replaceable, and a quick trip around campus with a digital camera should satisfy the problem. I've found a few substitutes on Flickr, but they're all copyrighted, so I'm flickrmailing the authors to see if they'll release them under cc-by-sa (John Caroll, Riggs Library). I'm not having any luck for the Dahlgreen quadrangle, and as far as the Healy sunset image goes, I think we already have a much more illustrative image of Healy (if we really want another, commons has another available at :Image:Healy hall georgetown.jpg, but I personally don't think it's worth it, and I'll see about getting this flickr image of Lauinger Library released. Obviously, if we're going for FA, we can't have these types of copyright problems. So about the only one we really need help on is the Dahlgreen quadrangle, if anyone's in the DC area. --YbborTalk 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do.  I've sold all the nicest photos of the campus I've taken to the school because I'm poor like that, but fortunately I usually take two of each shot.  There is this one of the quad, but that's a winter photo.--Patrick 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, We're one for one so far. catelinp has graciously provided us a (rather nice) photo of Lauinger Library. I'm uploading it to commons, and placing a speedy tag on the Healy sunset one unless anyone has any objections. --YbborTalk 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this may be a bigger problem than I thought. :Image:Healysnow.jpg, :Image:White-gravenor.jpg, and :Image:Whitegravenor1.jpg also have the same problem. These are mostly used in galleries, so they probably won't be sorely missed, but just putting them here for easy reference. --YbborTalk 15:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've found  picture of of the Dahlgren quadrangle. I guess it helps if you spell it right. These two are already under creative commons, but improperly licensed. However, I'm holding out for this one, which is fully copyrighted, but a much nicer shot. --YbborTalk 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two for Two now. We got Dhalgren Quadrangle. Same process as above. --YbborTalk 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I put some of my personal collection up on the commons. Pick whichever.  I did like that Dahlgren one, so I will try to take one like it.  Otherwise, I've never found the big one of Healy to be compelling. Also, Gaston has a poor shot as well.  The one of John Carroll I will also be sad to loose.  --Patrick 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image problem 

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

message: I would like to first say that I would really like to see this section grow, considering for a lot of people (somewhere on the order of 14,000), that's where their experience with Georgetown ends ;)
 
I would like to clarify something though, Patrick. Here you removed a reference I put in a few weeks ago about the undergraduate prospectus, complaining about both redundancy and the lack of an online version. When I put that in, I also added the information about the 35% of students who were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their class. However, you removed the reference without removing the bit about the 35%. The collegeboard link does not specify about those 35%, that comes directly from the viewbook. 
I put the reference at the end of the sentence since I'm pretty sure (although I could be wrong) it's bad form to include references halfway though a sentence, rather, it should just be placed at the end (IIRC I've had a few editors move my references when I've tried this). I'm not 100% certain, so I'll look into the MOS, and you might want to do the same. A-ha! Found it! Apparently I should have placed it after a comma. My bad. 
As far as not having a weblink, I actually looked before adding the reference, but couldn't find anything. I don't believe there is any burden on us to find web links for reliable sources; the article has other sources that are confined to ink and paper, although I'll grant you those have ISBN numbers. If it matters (I know it doesn't), I have the book in front of me.
Anyway, just put the citation back or remove the [uncited] 35% entirely. I'd do it myself, but despite WP:OWNERSHIP, you really know what you're doing, and have done some great work :) 
Again, I'd really like to see this section grow. I noticed you asked somewhere else for help finding people to work on this "smaller" school. I'd be willing to help (especially before I go back to High School in September, and start filling out the forms to get a first-hand experience of the admissions process ;) ), but as I don't usually get tied down to a single project around here, if you could give me some tasks you think need work, I'd gladly do what I can :). --YbborTalk 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm just artsy, and two reference tags in a row stand out.  When I've had that I usually try to make two sentences.  But if the citation is necessary, then my bad, it should be put back.  I think the prospectus is linked to in the external links section too.  My thoughts on the admissions section are this: we probably should make two paragraphs out of it, one with undergraduate and one with graduate information, since they seem to be distinct. Undergraduate should have SAT scores and graduate should have GMAT or LSAT or MCAT scores sourced.  And thanks for the compliment, I've just had time to kill this last week on the article.  As far as tasks go, I'm really not sure what more needs to be done, which is why I've put it out to try to get ideas from editors here and at other schools.  G'luck applying this fall!--Patrick 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put the ref back in. The link to the viewbook is a dead link, and IIRC, has been for some time. --YbborTalk 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Lately I've been adding bits about the Metro to many D.C. area universities. I wanted to do the same with Georgetown, but simply putting the stations in the |publictransit =  parameter of the infobox seems like a disservice, since there's also the issue of the shuttle buses to and from Rosslyn. I'm not familiar with Georgetown, but I would imagine it has other types of buses to (like to other campuses). I don't suppose someone familiar with the Georgetown Website can direct me to a place where we can write a more complete "transportation" section? (Statistics on the number of students with cars would be great too). --YbborTalk 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Office of Transportation Management runs GUTS buses from campus to both Dupont and Rosslyn metro stations.  There is no one public transit service, maybe we could put "Bus", "None", or "Dupont/Rosslyn via GUTS Buses".--Patrick 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, do we want to make this a full sub-section or not? And if so, where should we put it? I'm tihkning either under Campuses or Student Life. --YbborTalk 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that would work in Campus, after describing where the main campus is.  So after "are located at the intersection of 37th and O Streets, NW".  The alternative is after "with some in Dupont Circle and elsewhere through the region" under Student Life.--Patrick 13:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation 

message: Not all thumbs have fullstops after the captions (especially the longer ones). It should be consistent? I'm assuming of course those without are not "complete sentences" per MOS. Chensiyuan 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SandyGeorgia had me put the periods in last week for caption that had complete phrases. I'm not so sure this was necessary, but I don't think incomplete phrases should ever have periods. So either all without, some with, but not all with.--Patrick Ѻ 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fullstops

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

message: "Georgetown's three urban campuses feature traditional collegiate architecture and layout, but prize their green spaces and environmental commitment." This sounds like it was written by the university's marketing department.--Gbleem 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, a bit.  But if you have a more punchy way of saying "There are some trees and old buildings, and some are environmental" then go for it.--Patrick Ѻ 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  green space and environment 

message: This section seems to be missing. Is there any? Surely there must be some criticism of the faculty, curriculum or Catholic heritage. This FA article reads more like a brochure.
--Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jesuit section has criticism related to the Christian identity, as does activism. What more should it criticize?--Patrick Ѻ 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of GU 

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

message: I propose a merger of Georgetown University Student Association into this article.  The Georgetown University Student Association article suffers from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak oppose That's a lot of information for the already long article. And I don't think merging solves the issues with the article, but rather pushes them onto an already working page. I'll see what I can do about referencing that next week.--Patrick Ѻ 08:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Patrick, This discussion is relevant to what has gone on with the article Washington University Student Union  and the discussion at: Talk:Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Student_Union_merge_proposal.  Thanks,--Lmbstl (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you for that. I see this is a wider and general merge campaign of student association articles. I've added a number of references to the specific GUSA article, and request that it be re-evaluated.--Patrick Ѻ 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I'd imagine this is public domain (it certainly looks old-timey enough).  Can anyone find a reference stating how long it has been in use?  Postdlf (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the official site says it's been in use since between 1796 and 1803, but in 1844 was changed to a different version.  This version was revived in 1977.  See their site.  But I don't think it is public domain since it is a logo, which doesn't work like photos, and is still in use.--Patrick Ѻ 00:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, it's clearly public domain based on its age.  Whether something is in the public domain is purely a matter of copyright law.  Logos can of course be in the public domain, because whether or not it functions as a trademark is a completely different question (and FYI, there's no reason why a photo could not also function as a logo).  And Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with trademark issues because we don't use anything as trademarks (except nominatively).  Postdlf (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Seal original 200.gif]] 

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

message: Rankings, where do they go? We haven't had them on the page for some time. I'm not sure they're necessary, and I'm not sure I like giving them legitimacy. Of those, I do prefer the world rankings as being better for Wikipedia's scope. Anyway if we were to include them, where should they go? I removed them from the summary this morning, but think they might go at the end of the History section, somewhere in the first Academics section, or as part of the Admissions section. Thoughts?--Patrick «» 20:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so I put them all into the middle of the Admissions section, after the revealed preference ranking. I'm not sure about this "Wall Street Journal ranking". WSJ usually only ranks graduate schools, so this refers to which undergrads are the best feeder schools for their top grad schools.--Patrick «» 21:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

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

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

message: I removed :Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. from this article. The university itself is not listed on the NRHP, althought it does contribute to the Georgetown Historic District (a National Historic Landmark). Healy Hall (NHL) and the Astronomical Observatory (NRHP) are the only buildings listed as individual properties, so the categories belong on their articles. Just letting fellow editors know in case the topic comes up at some point. APK ain't the baby daddy 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Not sure how that got there.--Patrick «» 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRHP 

message: I noticed that Georgetown was facing criticism for hosting events promoting sexual license, cross-dressing and homosexual ideologies just as Lent begins, the University being accused of promoting only the orthodoxy of “sexual liberation.”  Another controversy that is related to Catholic identity is when President Obama covered the IHS symbol when speaking at the university.  And too, there is the one about honoring pro-choice politician Joseph Biden.  ADM (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a sentence about Catholic criticism of their pro-choice speakers, including Obama at the end of what is basically the abortion paragraph in the "Jesuit heritage" section. I don't know if Sex Week is important enough to be mentioned. Maybe if its a big deal next year too. The IHS deal is unfortunate, but again I think it needs to be a pattern to work here.--Patrick «» 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex week controversy