Talk:Gonzaga University

message: How were degrees given in 1884 if the university was founded in 1887?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8003:E3A0:1901:4571:A383:AA49 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this discrepancy. 204.130.228.173 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding Discrepancy

message: :Template:User Gonzaga University now exists. Enjoy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template: User Gonzaga University created 

message: It looks somewhat odd having the section on abusive priests so high up in the article under its own heading, but at the movement we don't have an appropriate heading. We should definitely not relegate it to the very bottom of the article, in the bad habit of stuffing negative facts into a "Controversy" garbage dump section at the end. Typically on any given topic there is the intro, then History, then sections describing various aspects of the subject. If we had a history section, beginning with the founding of the university and running in chronological order, then the abusive priest material would be a sub-heading near the near of that. Like this:
Contents
    1 History
        1.1 Founding
        1.2 Growth
        1.3 Some event
        1.4 Some other events
        1.5 Abusive priests sent to live on campus
    2 Campus
    3 Organization and administration
    4 Academics
        4.1 Admissions
        4.2 Rankings
    5 Athletics
        5.1 Intramural and club sports
    6 Student life
    7 Student publications
    8 Alumni
    9 See also
    10 References
    11 External links
For now it's OK but that's how I would improve it. It requires actually writing a history section so we have come content to go there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is not even okay for now. First, I don't believe this content should even be on this article. Second, if it should be here it should be write down at the bottom. I say this for two reasons. First, if you read through the sources on this they say very, very little about the university at all. This thing is VERY tangential. The sources don't even describe anything that could be fairly characterised as being part of a history of Gonzaga University. Second, putting this information so high up in the article implies a connection to the university that was much more extensive than sources indicate. This is creates a very clear problem with undue weight and POV. If this thing stays at all, which it should not, it should be at the bottom of the article. It should also be re-written to remove all language unrelated to the subject and to remove inflammatory language. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that looks like it was an epic flash edit blitz/edit war. We can restore it to the July 21 version when the protection is lifted. I think its former location under “campus” is more appropriate than giving it its own section under "history", while this unquestionably happened *on campus* there is a question about how much input or knowledge the leaders of the University had. If we get more information at a later date that ties the university more directly into the decision making process then it would perhaps warrant its own section in under history. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I was hasty, it seems like we need to either clean up the 3 July version or revert to the 31st May version. I’m no longer so certain it doesn’t belong under history but I’m not sure that an independent section wouldn’t be WP:UNDUE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to cast doubt and play devil's advocate here. The statement that Bea House is unquestionably on Campus is not entirely credible unless you have a source in support of that. I have done some online searching and it is difficult to connect the Bea House to Gonzaga University WITHOUT any reference that has to do with the event in question. Even the campus website search function returns nothing but articles in reference to the event in question. I believe minor edits may be in order for correctness. Per paragraph 3 of this statement by the university president the Bea House is not owned or operated by the college. While this statement might not be entirely truthful, I think a credible source directly opposing this statement might be necessary to justify wording the section as if Bea House is included in the campus. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting story is the most authoritative, its title is "These priests abused in Native villages for years. They retired on Gonzaga’s campus” and the article supports that assertion multiple times. Was it really necessary for you to play devils advocate before even skimming the sources? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do find it necessary to do so because I HAVE reviewed the sources, and the source you just referenced states "While the building appears on campus maps and is listed in the campus directory, it’s not officially part of the private Jesuit university. Cardinal Bea House is owned by the Jesuit order of the Catholic Church.". I am not here to say the event should be removed from the page, even though there is a case for that. I just want the details of the section to be as accurate as they can be. You are correct in saying the article repeatedly refers to the location as "on campus" but it also does so from a geographical standpoint, and makes the above clarification which directly opposes the concept that this building has a strong connection to the university. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You appear to be assuming that “on campus” and “university owned” are equivalent statements... They are not. College campuses often include independent or semi-independent entities in addition to wholly owned or leased buildings. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reviewed the article as it currently stands. In viewing today's edit war I appear to have confused which version of the section was the original (and current) version. I agree now that the terminology in place is acceptable from a technical standpoint. I do however think the section's current location may be too prominent considering its connection to the university itself, and/or that the writing and presence of the section conveys a sense of responsibility on the universities part. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

text: That's not in any way reasonable. The obvious intent is to hide the fact that this took place on campus. Readers can't be expected to recognize what or where Cardinal Bea House is. Which is exactly why you want to use that wording: to cloud the issue. You haven't cited any sources that dispute that this was on campus. You claim its tangential yet cite zero sources who argue that. As I demonstrate with the citations below, this is uncontroversial. You're pushing your POV and your opinions with no basis. You are contradicting reliable sources, and casting aspersions on sources which have been picked up and carried by other reputable media: Reveal's report was run on the Associated Press, printed in the Seattle Times, and treated as fact by several national Catholic media organizations. The University itself, as well as the Diocese and the Jesuits, all agree that this is not tangential, and none dispute that it was on campus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is an unreasonably conciliatory gesture towards your perspective. First, there is a lot more to say about Bea House than things related to abusive clergy. See this article for an example. It would make perfect sense to incorporate this material and change the name of the section to Cardinal Bea House. In any event the current header is POV and misleading because it implies that the university has meaningful control over the facility when they in fact do not. I support using the the words "on campus" as long as they are contextualised with language to the effect that it is clear that the university does not own, operate, or control the facility. The reliable sources laid out below offer similar context and we are required by Wikipedia's rules to be faithful to them. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Did you note that many of these same articles call this "fact" into question by noting that the university does not own or control Cardinal Bea House. Also, it appears that these sources are uncritically repeating what was said in the initial piece of investigative journalism that brought this to everyone's attention? If we are going to say that Bea House is on campus we should not do so in the headline because that implies a degree of control by the university that simply wasn't there. We should say this in the body and contextualise with the fact that the university has no ownership or control over this facility. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are currently the only one contending that saying its on campus implies direct control, it quite obviously doesn’t. As it currently stands there is no factual dispute over whether or not the house is on campus, you’re presenting a WP:OR and WP:FRINGE view which is completely unsupported by the text. Saying that the university doesn't own the Bea house does literally nothing to “call this "fact" into question” as ownership is not contingent in the whole idea of being on campus. WP:LISTEN. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were true it would not make me wrong. The argument from authority is a fallacy. It also happens that if you read through this monstrous talk page you will find that another editor has expressed a concern that is almost the same. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Authority? Good sources are the authority we defer to. WP:WEIGHT is determined by sources, not us. An idea found in no source is original research. Implying that it’s not really on campus, editorializing or casting double on that, is treating facts as opinions, which is not NPOV. It’s OK to say matter of factly, in the same tone as our sources, that GU is not the property owner. But not to imply anything by that. I’ve written half a history of GU, allowing the section to be folded into that, rather than all on its own.—Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

text: There is not such thing as “The argument from authority” fallacy on wikipedia, thats literally how we operate. I think you will note that the other editor has concerns (which I share) about the relevant place to put the text and/or subsection (the current version being a little too on the nose), but acknowledges campus means campus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Please attack some other straw man. You knew very well that I was not challenging Wikipedia's sourcing rules. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what were you doing? I don’t get it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that any factual assertion about Wikipedia policy and practice as well as any factual assertion about what is in a source is true or false regardless of the editor who happens to be making the claim. In this manner the argument from authority fallacy does creep into Wikipedia in a big way. Some very interesting scandals where people have lied about being subject matter experts and gotten all kinds of nutty stuff into articles have happened. Anyway, it was an aside. Don't read too much into it. This thread is already hard enough for the non-involved to read. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification, I totally see were you’re going now. I think we can all leave off until the page is open for editing again, I have faith that this group of editors can come to a consensus for a section under either campus or history that will appropriately summarize the relationship of Gonzaga University to the Bea House without being WP:UNDUE when given the chance. Until then we can really only snark at each other. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusive priests section -> missing History section 

message: * Gonzaga Bulletin Gonzaga responds to reassignment of Jesuits with safety plans to Bea House. Ian Davis-Leonard. Dec 18, 2018. "In the middle of Gonzaga University's campus stands the Jesuit-owned Cardinal Bea House". Were the priests living "near" the campus? No. They were "in the middle" of campus.
* Spokesman-Review.Gonzaga students worked with accused priests at Bea House. April 28, 2019.  Chad Sokol. "For years, Gonzaga University students held part-time jobs at Cardinal Bea House, a Jesuit-owned building on the school's campus". on the school's campus. "...and another building on campus, Jesuit House,"
* Spokesman-Review. The question still follows GU President Thayne McCulloh: Did he know? Some are certain that he did. April 28, 2019. Shawn Vestal. "...the Jesuits were sending priests who had sexually abused children to retire on campus". It says on campus. "Cardinal Bea House – a retirement home owned by the Jesuits and located on the GU campus – or in the GU-owned Jesuit House, " located on the GU campus. Is this topic relevant to Gonzaga University? It "landed like a bomb on campus" and "Gonzaga President Thayne McCulloh this month announced he's assembling a commission to address clergy sexual abuse." If it's not relevant to Gonzaga University, why would the University President need to assemble a commission on the topic? Are things that "land like a bomb" trivial? Irrelevant? McCulloh said "I'm asking the same question: How did I miss this, or how did I not know about this, or how did this not land on me?" Why would McCulloh feel the need to ask this question if the subject is of no relevance to Gonzaga University? He clearly believes it is relevant, and he says he understands why it's hard to believe that the University President could be unaware of this.  McCulloh said "I deeply regret that I was not informed of the presence of Fr. Poole, nor any other Jesuits who might pose such a danger, at Cardinal Bea House." Why would he regret this unless it is of relevance and importance to Gonzaga University? McCulloh said he was "surprised when he was informed in 2016 that the last of those Jesuits were being moved off campus". They were moved off campus in 2016, because prior to 2016, they were living on campus. Etc.
* Spokesman-Review. Gonzaga University forming panel to address clergy sex abuse. April 16, 2019. Chad Sokol. "Gonzaga University was criticized for allowing sexually abusive priests to live on campus". " Cardinal Bea House, a Jesuit-owned building on the university's campus"
* Spokesman-Review. Two Jesuit vice presidents resign from Gonzaga following reports about how leaders handled abusive priests on campus. Dec. 21, 2018. Chad Sokol. "he retired to the Jesuit-owned Cardinal Bea House on Gonzaga's campus". "McCulloh and the Jesuits West Province have said there are no longer any accused priests living at Gonzaga".
* Spokesman-Review.. Cover-up at Gonzaga: Leary left after '69 police ultimatum. Sept. 9, 2006. John Stucke and Benjamin Shors. " the university, the Spokane Police Department and Jesuit hierarchy orchestrated a stunning cover-up that preserved the reputation of the institution and a man revered as a leader in Spokane". "Gonzaga issued a statement calling the reports 'deeply distressing,'" Why is it deeply distressing? Because it is highly relevant to Gonzaga University. 
* KREM-TV. Spokane bishop: Jesuits, Gonzaga didn't disclose accused priests on campus. Megan Carroll. December 18, 2018. " seven priests accused of sexual abuse living at Cardinal Bea House on the university's campus."
* Seattle Times. Jesuits sent abusive priests to retire on Gonzaga's campus.  December 17, 2018. Aaron Sankin. Emily Schwing. Michael Corey. The Associated Press. "Cardinal Bea House on Gonzaga's campus served as a retirement repository for at least 20 Jesuit priests accused of sexual misconduct"
* America: The Jesuit Review Report: Jesuits have been housing abusive priests at Gonzaga for years same 
* Catholic News Agency. Spokane diocese was told 7 accused priests lived at Gonzaga. Dec 20, 2018. "The Diocese of Spokane said Thursday it was unacceptable that Jesuit priests credibly accused of sexual abuse were unsupervised on the campus of Gonzaga University."
* National Catholic Register. Spokane Diocese Told Seven Accused Jesuit Priests Once Lived at Gonzaga University. Dec. 21, 2018. Catholic News Agency. Statement from Diocese of Spokane: "The Diocese of Spokane shares the concern of those who are angry and saddened to learn that the Oregon Province of Jesuits — now part of the Jesuits West Province — placed Jesuits credibly accused of sexual abuse at the Cardinal Bea House on Gonzaga University's campus without informing the Gonzaga community." 
* The Inlander (newspaper). In the battle over the Catholic Church's soul, Spokane's current and former bishops fight on different sides. March 07, 2019. Daniel Walters "...quietly warehoused at the Cardinal Bea House on the Gonzaga University campus. "
* Esquire (magazine). The Catholic Church Is a Worldwide Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice. Charles P. Pierce. Dec 20, 2018. "the Society of Jesus had been stashing abusive Jesuits at a kind of safe house on the campus of Gonzaga University in Spokane."
* New York Times. Catholic Order Reaches $166 Million Settlement With Sexual Abuse Victims. March 25, 2011. William Yardley. "some of the accused priests, now in their 80s, live at Gonzaga under strict supervision."
It is an undisputed fact that Cardinal Bea House and Jesuit House are on the GU campus. The Spokane newspapers and TV say so. The GU president says so. The Diocese of Spokane says so. The current campus map published by Gonzaga shows the clearly marked boundaries of the campus, and places it inside those boundaries, one building away from the Quad at the heart of the campus. Not "near" the campus. On the campus. The sources above also report that the priests had free run of the campus of which they lived in the middle of, and regular, unlimited, unsupervised contact with the students. These facts are not in dispute. No reliable sources say, "No, it wasn't really on campus." No reliable sources say this issue is tangential. No reliable sources say it isn't relevant to GU. The Diocese, the Jesuits, Catholic media, GU's president all say it is important and relevant to GU.<P>It is true that corporate entity Gonzaga University is not the owner of Cardinal Bea House and Jesuit House. They are owned operated by a different legal entity, the Jesuit Order. None of the reliable sources cited here treat that as meaningful or significant. None say "technically, it's not part of GU" or "technically it's not on the Gonzaga campus". No sources say that because it's not "technically" part of GU, it isn't relevant or isn't the responsibility of the University.<P>This is not a controversial question. There is universal agreement on the basic fact that this was on the GU campus and that it mattered a great deal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you note that many of these same articles call this "fact" into question by noting that the university does not own or control Cardinal Bea House. Also, it appears that these sources are uncritically repeating what was said in the initial piece of investigative journalism that brought this to everyone's attention? If we are going to say that Bea House is on campus we should not do so in the headline because that implies a degree of control by the university that simply wasn't there. We should say this in the body and contextualise with the fact that the university has no ownership or control over this facility. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are currently the only one contending that saying its on campus implies direct control, it quite obviously doesn’t. As it currently stands there is no factual dispute over whether or not the house is on campus, you’re presenting a WP:OR and WP:FRINGE view which is completely unsupported by the text. Saying that the university doesn't own the Bea house does literally nothing to “call this "fact" into question” as ownership is not contingent in the whole idea of being on campus. WP:LISTEN. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were true it would not make me wrong. The argument from authority is a fallacy. It also happens that if you read through this monstrous talk page you will find that another editor has expressed a concern that is almost the same. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Authority? Good sources are the authority we defer to. WP:WEIGHT is determined by sources, not us. An idea found in no source is original research. Implying that it’s not really on campus, editorializing or casting double on that, is treating facts as opinions, which is not NPOV. It’s OK to say matter of factly, in the same tone as our sources, that GU is not the property owner. But not to imply anything by that. I’ve written half a history of GU, allowing the section to be folded into that, rather than all on its own.—Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

text: There is not such thing as “The argument from authority” fallacy on wikipedia, thats literally how we operate. I think you will note that the other editor has concerns (which I share) about the relevant place to put the text and/or subsection (the current version being a little too on the nose), but acknowledges campus means campus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Please attack some other straw man. You knew very well that I was not challenging Wikipedia's sourcing rules. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what were you doing? I don’t get it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that any factual assertion about Wikipedia policy and practice as well as any factual assertion about what is in a source is true or false regardless of the editor who happens to be making the claim. In this manner the argument from authority fallacy does creep into Wikipedia in a big way. Some very interesting scandals where people have lied about being subject matter experts and gotten all kinds of nutty stuff into articles have happened. Anyway, it was an aside. Don't read too much into it. This thread is already hard enough for the non-involved to read. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification, I totally see were you’re going now. I think we can all leave off until the page is open for editing again, I have faith that this group of editors can come to a consensus for a section under either campus or history that will appropriately summarize the relationship of Gonzaga University to the Bea House without being WP:UNDUE when given the chance. Until then we can really only snark at each other. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources showing that nobody disputes this is ON CAMPUS, and nobody disputes it's relevant to GU