Talk:DePaul University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of unfavorable comments

I would like to provide some additional factual information about one of the free speech items under Controvery. The item as currently written has an error of fact and leaves out important information on why university decisions were made. I would like to discuss this with the author(s) of the comment so that, ideally, we can agree on a revised entry that achieves NPOV. How do I get in touch with that author?

Good article on status of Thomas lawsuit against DePaul for infringing on his 1st ammendment rights, libel, slander, etc.: http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5540Incorrect 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the words following conservative groups (dealing with FIRE) "objecting to its Catholicism." I have no idea what that means - the Catholic church (or if intended as a small c) universiality? In any case, since the issues raised are free speech issues, either meaning is inappropriate - FIRE has certainly never said it objects to C(c)atholicsim, and any claim that it does so should be sourced.Incorrect 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove truthful statements simply because they put your favorite university in a less-favorable light. Wikipedia is not DePaul. Censorship is less welcome here.

If DePaul doesn't like being called weak on free speech, then they need to change their behavior, not censor Wikipedia entries.

What Catholic groups request the LGBT program be ended? Please add a footnote or evidence, or it will deleted. Students who do not register for wikipedia and put forth an unsourced piece of bias should know that their commentary can and will be cut out.

• Added my LGBT program paragraph back, with citation to the first article about it I found. It should also be noted that I'm an alumni of DePaul, not a student. -- Loco830/Espio (Rant) 17:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Site Needs Images

Can't we add some images to the DePaul Wiki site? Maybe pictures of a building from each of the colleges? Check out Wiki sites for Duke, Northwestern, etc. DePaul's is a beautiful campus; I've seen many nice images on the website and other places.Mc4932 22:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Academics: Rankings

There was a long paragraph at the beginning of the academics section that listed favorable-sounding rankings for DePaul on a variety of narrow criteria. Those are great and appear to be accurate, but they paint an unrealistically rosy picture because they leave out something big. I added the overall US News ranking (from 2008 Best Colleges), which lists DePaul in the third tier (bottom half) for institutions of its class. Of course I left all the other accolades in place, but I thought it was important to add what is generally seen as the most comprehensive ranking to help put the others in context. --Brianwantium 17 August 2007

Good idea.--Gloriamarie 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with Depauw U.

The entry does not need the disclaimer regarding Depauw U. at the beginning. It compromises the value of this entry. If anything, that text should be at the bottom. Enough people know the difference between DePaul and Depauw (most people have never heard of the latter). It is redundant and there is no need to have information about the other university as the very first part of this entry. I have removed the text. If you reinsert it, please put it at the bottom or somewhere where it'd be less conspicuous. Mc4932 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

removed again on 2/11/07 Mc4932

Well I am sorry but it was right on the Depauw's one and it didnt make a difference to me so i guess it only bothers some people

i actually think it's a great idea. a friend of mine applied to depauw and i misheard it as being depaul. and the link at the top prevented me from tedious searchings for a correct spelling (though it probably wouldn't have taken very long). basically i think it serves a good function. maybe it can be reworded; that's my only problem with it. other than that, there's nothing wrong with it. Jay Bones 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The two colleges have very similar names, and I'm sure many are confused. The link to DePauw should appear at the top.--Gloriamarie 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It breaks up the article and it looks bad. I made it into a prominently placed note. Mc4932 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DePaulBlueDemons.gif

Image:DePaulBlueDemons.gif 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 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DePaulBlueDemonsSheild.gif

Image:DePaulBlueDemonsSheild.gif 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 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Process that will be followed for edits that may have a conflict of interest

I am an employee of the University Relations department of DePaul University.

DePaul University respects that Wikipedia is designed to be a neutral and comprehensive source of information. It does not exist to promote the viewpoint or agenda of any individual or organization, but to serve the interests of its viewers.

The staff of University Relations has reviewed Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines and note that Wikipedia recommends that parties who may have a conflict of interest should use the talk pages such as this one before posting edits.

In that spirit, we are using this page to alert readers that I and other members of University Relations will employ the following process when making edits to articles about DePaul University, its components and its employees.

• All edits will be made from a user account that clearly identifies the editor as an employee of University Relations at DePaul University. • All edits will first be posted to the discussion page of the article. If no response has been received from other editors within three days, the edit will be made to the main article. • All edits will be linked to related Web pages whenever possible. • Entries will be factual and will refrain from hyperbole. Honors and rankings will be linked to outside sources. • When controversies exist, edits will present the university’s viewpoint and will not remove viewpoints of other editors, except as comments can be demonstrated to be factually incorrect. Links will be provided to factual information and to official statements. Links to blogs or Web pages of other groups will not be removed. • Editors from University Relations will make every effort to work with other Wikipedia editors on talk pages to reach a mutually agreeable edit before posting that information to the article’s main page.

We believe that this process will improve the quality of information on DePaul-related Web sites in a transparent and cooperative fashion. Our goal is to work collaboratively with other editors on Wikipedia. If you have suggestions about this process, please feel free to contact me via e-mail or on my talk page.

In addition, be aware that DePaul’s IP address block includes student accounts, computer labs, libraries and other locations where non-employees are able to access the Internet and edit Wikipedia articles. If you have concerns about an edit posted from a DePaul IP address, please contact me.

Kris —Preceding comment was added at 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to anonymous poster

You added this phrase to the discussion about Mr. Klocek on Nov. 12: "peaceful and out of the classroom as they may have been."

It is true that the incident in question happened in a public area in the student union. However, many people there did not consider the incident peaceful. That is why students concerned about Mr. Klocek's behavior called campus security twice. I do not believe that "peaceful" meets the test of objectivity and intend to remove it on Thursday, pending further discussion of your post with you.

Kris 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision to basketball edit

This edit was placed following a previous statement that refers to the 2007-08 season. I propose placing it in front of that statement and revising the year to read 2006-07, as follows.

"In the 2006-07 season, the Blue Demons beat powerhouse #5 Kansas, pulling off one of the greatest upsets in school history. They also beat 2006 NCAA tournament teams California, Northwestern State, Marquette, and Villanova. The team made it to the NIT and lost in the bracket final to Air Force.

At the start of the 2007-08 season, Wainwright is two wins short of 200 and has made six post-season appearances in his previous 12 years as head coach."

Kris (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tenure denial

There is no basis in fact that Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure on basis of his views on holocaust as the article currently states. On the letter from DePaul president Dennis Holtschneider it was stated that: "In the opinion of those opposing tenure, your unprofessional personal attacks divert the conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration" [1]. So basically mr. Finkelstein was rejected as a "problematic individual". --Magabund 07:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, DePaul's president said that about the decision-- that's not necessarily why all the board members voted the way they did.--Gloriamarie 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gloriamarie is quite correct. Many see this as one of the reasons for people voting against tenure. '''Shawn''' (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed update to statistics

Fall 2007 enrollment data is now available. On Thursday, I plan to update the figures as follows:

Total enrollment - 23,401 Total undergrads - 15024 Total grads - 7353 Total law - 1,024

Total fulltime faculty - 882

I will make these updates on Thursday unless someone objects.

Kris 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed update to Leonard Jason mention

On Monday I plan to add a link to professor Leonard Jason's ranking by the Journal of Psychology at follows http://psychology.unc.edu/news/Documents/jlclinpsy-top-producers-1.pdf

Kris (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

proposed update to endowment figure

On Monday, I plan to update the endowment figure to its current level, $344.7 million, and remove the errant link to a non-relevant document. Kris (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Individial Sports Page

Every other bigtime school has an own page for sports. How about Depaul? Can someone make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.61.87 (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

proposed update

The crest that was placed on the page is a trademarked image that is not available for public use or authorized through Creative Commons. I will remove it on Wednesday AM. I am happy to replace it with the DePaul logo that was removed previously.

Kris (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dpu law.jpg

Image:Dpu law.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

proposed update about DIBS

On Tuesday, I plan to provide the requested citations about DIBS and his history with a link to this page from the DePaul athletics site: http://www.depaulbluedemons.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=15600&KEY=&ATCLID=1285279

Kris (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

this feels a bit too much like an ad to me--the constant disclaimers about ever-increasing excellence, anyone?--66.65.125.206 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

proposed grammatical corrections

On Thursday, I plan to correct the grammar in the following entry submitted anonymously on March 24: The 2007-08 season saw the demons with a 10-19 record but their was high points in the year. Depaul had upsets over then #15 and now 2008 tournament sweet sixteen Villanova and Big Ten Northwestern. Despite the record Depaul has a bright future with freshman Dar Tucker and Mac Koshwal coming with strong freshman years. Kris (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

proposed edit to correct name

On Monday, I plan to edit the name of the computer science college, which changed its name on April 15 from the School of Computer Science, Telecommunications and Information Systems to the College of Computing and Digital Media. I also will update links to the college's new Web site and make any other edits related to this change. Kris (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you also plan on making a proposal to Move the CTI page to the new CDM name? I think this would be the best solution, since it would allow to keep the history of the name changes of the institution. CTI should then redirect to CDM. --Scaatt (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

proposed restoration of comment

Madcoverboy removed information from the controversies section that provided a different point of view on whether DePaul suppresses freedom of speech. The information in this section was factual. I plan to restore it in three days, as it was originally posted, unless Madcoverboy or others wish to discuss this further.

Kris (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

proposed reorganization of bullets

The recently restored comment (see above) was originally inserted in response to the criticisms by FIRE. I propose reversing the order of the following two bullets to add clarity:

   * The administration attempts to maintain a position respectful of the range of student beliefs.[24] [25] On May 24, 2006, the university sponsored a forum on free speech for students, faculty and interested community members, which featured Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School and Ann Franke of United Educators in Washington, DC, and included a discussion between the speakers and audience members.

   * In recent years, DePaul has been the target of criticism, for different reasons, by various conservative and free speech organizations, including some that oppose the university's inclusive Catholicism. The most active of the free speech groups is FIRE, a free speech civil rights advocacy group. FIRE gave the President of the University, Dennis H. Holtschneider, its award for the worst protector of Free Speech by a university president.[3]

I will also revise the now-incorrect name of the computer science school in the campuses section and add a link to the See Also section. I will make these changes on Thursday unless someone has an issue or wishes to make them first. 140.192.83.153 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The CDM corrections were already fixed soon after the change. --Scaatt (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Big East new.gif

The image Image:Big East new.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Illegal use of copyrighted image

The university crest that was posted to this page is a copyrighted image that is specifically not to be used for any general purpose. This image has been removed before. Because this is a clear copyright violation, I will remove it immediately.

Kris (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition of information

On Friday, I plan to add the fact that DePaul recently purchased the 18-story Lytton Building at State and Jackson, increasing its Loop campus. I also will add a link to the Wiki page on CDM. Interested parties are welcome to make these changes or discuss my proposed changes. Kris (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision of incorrect edit

On July 2, a person from this IP 209.137.143.97 changed the enrollment data for DePaul. The new numbers are incorrect and too high. I plan to revert the edit to the fall 2007 enrollment figures on Monday, July 7. Kris (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of Loop location, building correction

Text current reads that DePaul's Loop campus is in a single building. It centers at State and Jackson, but includes five buildings, plus rental space and a shared building.

I propose revising the first paragraph as follows:

DePaul's Loop campus is located in downtown Chicago along Jackson Boulevard from State Street to Michigan Avenue. It is close to the stock exchanges, financial district, and the Art Institute of Chicago. The DePaul Center (DPC), an 11-story building fully renovated in 1993 to include modern classrooms, high-tech student services and a business library, is located in the former Goldblatt's Department Store. It is home to the College of Commerce. In November of 2000, the Urban Land Institute presented DPC with its Award for Excellence for Rehabilitation.

Furthermore, the A.M. Rothschild Store was at Van Buren and State. The DePaul Center is in the former Goldblatt's Department Store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgallagh (talk • contribs) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition of brackets to names

On Wednesday I will add brackets around the names of all individuals mentioned here and, if pages exist, add the DePaul University Faculty category at the footer of their pages. Kris (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Question why campus section removed; plan to restore

On Sept. 11, someone from the IP address 76.29.43.78 deleted the campuses section of the DePaul site without explanation. This information was contributed by numerous authors and I am unaware of any concerns about the content. I would like to discuss this with the anonymous editor. Please contact me. If this person does not respond within three days, I will restore the deleted content. Kris (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed update to enrollment

On Friday, I plan to update the enrollment figures to give the official fall 2008 counts. Kris (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revision of vandalism

On Wednesday I will remove the vandalism regarding the author of the Blue Demons Fight Song, unless someone beats me to it. 140.192.83.153 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed insertion of correct building name

On Wednesday I will correct the name of the new building on the Lincoln Park campus to the Monsignor Andrew J. McGowan Science Building. Kris (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion initiated to provide minor revisions

I've contact another editor to request a couple of edits to his/her entries. William McGowan was not a priest, so he should not have Monsignor preceding his name. The 1237 West apartment building was privately built and owned, although it has a rental agreement with DePaul. I'll make those changes on Monday if the previous editor has not responded.

Kris (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Immediate removal of copyrighted images

The seal and the logo and signature that were added to this site are copyrighted images of DePaul University. Because these are clear violations of Wikipedia's own standards, I am removing them immediately rather than waiting for the three-day comment period. 140.192.83.153 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The images are allowed under wikipedia's fair use policy. There is no violation of wikipedia standards, much like other copyrighted school logos are present for most other university pages on wikipedia. The proper image tag is apllied to each logo ackowledging copyright and claiming fair use. 70.75.9.235 (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed re=positioning of link to Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair

I suggest that the link to the Wikipedia article on the Dershowitz-Finklestein affair be moved from the top of the Controversies section to the bottom, immediately adjacent to the bullet that discusses that incident. I'll make that move on Monday if no one objects. Kris (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction of misinformation

Classes are being held in McGowan South during the winter quarter, contrary to a previous edit. I will make this change on Thursday unless someone beats me to it. Kris (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction of misinformation

On Feb. 4 a user called depaul campus revised enrollment statistics and claimed that the university was the fifth largest private institution. These figures are incorrect; the previous figures are accurate and widely reported. I will revert the changes to the previous post on Saturday unless someone wishes to discuss or to do so sooner. Kris (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction of building name

Several edits have been made to the name of the new science building. The correct name is the Monsignor Andrew J. McGowan Science Building. See http://newsroom.depaul.edu/NewsReleases/showNews.aspx?NID=1951. Kris (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Add GLBT Studies under controversy?

Lots of conservative/traditionalist Catholics were very angry when DePaul added GLBT Studies should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.220.23 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Add outcome of dean's accusation

On Thursday, I plan to add a sentence and link to this article to the controversy bullet about the law school dean, to this effect: The ABA did not find any irregularities that would affect the school's accreditation. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tue-chicago-law-07-28jul28,0,6099572.story

Kris (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

PRoposed revised text for CPE

In three days, I plan to revise the text for the CPE program, which was taken from marketing materials, with this more neutral text:

DePaul University Continuing and Professional Education (DePaul CPE)[20] provides non-degree-based professional development and adult education courses to individuals and to groups of employees at companies, organizations and governmental agencies. Courses range from three-hour seminars to 180-hour certificate programs and are offered online, on DePaul’s six campuses, and at company sites. Courses and certificates in 20 different topic areas are available, including Financial Planning, Human Resources and Training, Management, Marketing, Communications and Paralegal Studies.[22] DePaul CPE, a separate unit within DePaul, draws on university faculty and professionals from Chicago organizations to teach its courses. [21]

Anyone have any concerns with this? Kris (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yes certainly. DePaul is always at the forefornt of issues that deal with Social Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.133.20 (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

intent to restore deletion

Another author deleted this sentence: Like other universities, DePaul has incurred controversies.

It is factual. What is unusual is that DePaul has a comparatively large controversy section, most of it contributed by a small activist group that dislikes the university, and which is out of proportion to the controversy section of other similarly sized and aged institutions. The deleted sentence simply points out that DePaul is not alone in incurring controversies. Therefore, I plan to restore it on Thursday, unless someone wants to discuss further. Kris (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgallagh (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed updates to Commerce citations, SOE description, Lincoln Park Campus description

On Thursday I plan to make several updates, unless of course someone else wants to do them first.

Under the School of Education description, it says "Many of the schools graduates go on to teach at private Catholic schools in the city of Chicago." While true, it is limiting; many of the schools graduates teach at Chicago Public Schools and at a variety of public and private schools throughout the metropolitan area. I plan to say this. I will link to distribution source if I can find one.

Under the Lincoln Park Campus, there is a broken sentence: "Other recent additions include the state-of-the-art, and the Ray Meyer Fitness and Recreation Center." The other building that was added in this time frame was the Sullivan Athletic Center and McGrath Arena. I will add those names and delete the reference to "state-of-the-art."

Lastly, many of the rankings in the College of Commerce section are several years old, and newer ranking are available. I will add the most current rankings and links to the related articles.

If you have concerns or want to discuss any of this, please e-mail me. Kris (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed update to general description

On Tuesday, I plan to delete the following sentences, which are not factual: "DePaul University has consistently been ranked one of the best colleges in the nation by "US News & World Report". DePaul has also consistently been outperforming first and second tier schools in all academic areas." DePaul has been recognized in numerous subcategories, as reflected in the rest of the article; I may include one or two of those references to replace it.

Also, I will revise the ending of this sentence: "DePaul University has nine colleges and schools all of which provide their graduates with higher starting salaries than 98% of all universities in the nation." DePaul does have nine colleges and schools. Starting salaries for graduates vary, but on average are about 15 percent higher than the average in each field across the nation. I will verify the most current data.

If you have concerns or wish to discuss, please contact me. Kris (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Kris

Proposed correction to College of Commerce

The college's program in Taiwan is not active at this time. On Friday I plan to remove this reference.

I also plan to reorganize the last paragraph of the history section as follows: DePaul entered into a merger with Barat College in 2001, from which it withdrew in 2005 after continued low enrollment and rising maintenance costs made the campus unviable. The former Barat College had its final graduation on June 11, 2005 and was closed as of June 30, 2005. The remaining students, tenured and tenure-track faculty and some staff were absorbed into DePaul's other campuses. DePaul sold the grounds of the 147-year-old college to a condominium developer, Barat Woods LLC, which subsequently went into foreclosure; the property was sold at auction to Harris Bank.

Lastly, the College of Communication is now headquartered at the Loop Campus, and I will update the entry to reflect this. Kris (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgallagh (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 

140.192.83.134 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed update of fall enrollment, faculty headcount numbers

On Friday I plan to update the statistics to reflect official fall 2010 data, including 25,145 students, 15,994 undergrads, 8,014 graduate and 1,076 law. I will have full-time faculty numbers on Friday as well. Kris (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal of non-alumni

There is no record of Lilli Taylor nor Vince Vaughn attending DePaul. I will remove these names from the alumni list on Thursday, unless someone wishes to do so first. Kris Kris (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

removal of vandalism

I am removing the vandalism inserted by Solo5. Kris (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

revision to increase neutrality

I propose to rewrite this sentence to increase neutrality. FIRE's opinion is that DePaul is intolerant. The university maintains that it is not. Current version: In recent years, DePaul has been the target of criticism, for different reasons, by various conservative and free speech organizations, including some that oppose the university's intolerance of dissenting opinions. The most active of the free speech groups is FIRE, a free speech civil rights advocacy group. Proposed revision: In recent years, DePaul has been the target of criticism, for different reasons, by various conservative and free speech organizations. The most active of the free speech groups is FIRE. I'll make this change early next week unless someone wants to discuss. Kris (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Kris

New college from College of Liberal Arts and Sciences split and new name for School of Education.

DePaul University recently split their College of Liberal Arts and Sciences into 2 colleges: the new College of Science and Health & also renamed the college to College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, as only social sciences and liberal arts were left in the college. Also, towards the end of the 2010-2011 academic year the School of Education was renamed the College of Education. The Cultural Center was also renamed the Center for Intercultural Programs during the 2010-2011 school year. DePaul now has 10 colleges and schools. This change was made official on July 1, 2011. Proof of this is on DePaul's website http://depaul.edu/academics/index.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.99.246 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph re-write

I propose to rewrite this paragraph as follows, primarily for streamlining and readability:

DePaul University is a not-for-profit university. For 2010 and 2011, US News & World Report ranked DePaul in the Top Tier (Tier 1) of national colleges and universities. US News & World Report has twice ranked DePaul undergraduate students #1 in the USA (most recently in 2004) in terms of satisfaction with their college experience. The university's doctoral programs were ranked #1 in the USA for small university research programs in the Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index for 2005, produced by the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

DePaul emphasizes a primary focus on pedagogy and has been recognized for excellence in experiential and service-based learning. Since 2004, US News & World Report has recognized DePaul as one of the top schools in the nation for service learning in which community-based volunteer work is utilized as an instructional strategy.[18]The 2005 guidebook Colleges with a Conscience: 81 Great Schools with Outstanding Community Involvement provides a description of outreach activity undertaken by the university.

The university has a strong emphasis on recruiting first-generation university students and those from disadvantaged backgrounds while striving for academic rigor. The Princeton Review, in its 2007 survey of the best colleges and universities in the United States, ranked DePaul #1 in the nation in the "Diverse Student Population" category.

CIO Magazine, a leading journal for the information technology industry, named DePaul to its list of the nation's 100 most innovative organizations in information technology.[19] DePaul was recognized for its creation and implementation of a series of online tools that help students better navigate their academic careers.

DePaul University has ten colleges and schools.

Kris (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I hope you plan to retain the existing formatting (such as italics for magazine names) where appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll follow the existing format. Kris (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed update of enrollment statistics

On Thursday I will update the enrollment statistics as follows, unless someone objects or wishes to do so first. These are the figures officially submitted to the State of Illinois. Fall enrollment: 25,398 Undergraduates: 16,384 Postgraduates: 9,014 (1,031 in law) Kris (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a good source that you'll be citing then I don't know why you would wait or seek permission to make such a minor but necessary edit. ElKevbo (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

College of Commerce now known as Driehaus College of Business

DePaul University recently renamed the College of Commerce to the Driehaus College of Business due to Mr. Richard H. Driehaus's 30 million dollar donation to the college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.38.64 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

request edit

On Sept. 17, 2012, Horseblanket 10 made several edits to a paragraph about the dismissal of DePaul's former Law dean, beginning on line 69. The paragraph, which had been fairly neutral, now uses unsubstantiated adjectives to praise the former dean ( Weissenberger was a widley liked and nationally repected dean) and also makes unsubstantiated claims about actions of law faculty ( The law school faculty apprised the ABA of irrregularities in the removeal of Dean Weissenberger and the appoinment of an interim dean). The previous version correctly noted that the ABA found no irregularities related to distribution of tuition income; the edit implies that it found no irregularities in the dismissal of the dean (which may or may not be true).

Horseblanket 10 has made at least one other edit to the DePaul entry, subsequently reversed by a bot, that implies s/he is not presenting a neutral point of view. (See Sept. 23, 2012).

I request that Horseblanket's edits be reversed to the previous version until if and when s/he can provide substantiation for changes.

I work at DePaul and cannot make the changes myself without running afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Kris (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone already fixed this. Gigs (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

request edit

On Feb. 23, 2013, an unknown editor (71.205.207.96) incorrectly changed the reference to DePaul's campuses under the Campuses section. It does indeed have two primary campuses, one in the Loop and one in Lincoln Park. The Loop campus is home to half the colleges and schools as well as university administration and is in no way secondary. Please undo this edit. In addition, the Rolling Meadows campus is closed.

In addition, DePaul is now the 11th largest university in the nation, not the 10th, as is stated in the third sentence at the top.

Thank you for looking into this. I work at DePaul and am not supposed to make such edits myself, per COI. Kris (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty obvious correction. CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

request edit

Fall enrollment statistics are now available (http://oipr.depaul.edu/factfile/sect1/table1_1.asp?year=2013&termname=Autumn&term=1&termnum=1&termlaw=7)

Please update the information box at the upper left with the following Undergraduate enrollment: 16,420 (fall 2013 data) Graduate enrollment: 7,994 (891 Law) I work at DePaul, so it's COI for me to make this change. Kris (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please proceed with these changes. Neil916 (Talk) 08:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

request edit

In September 2013, DePaul opened a new theatre building at its Lincoln Park Campus. Details about the building are here: https://theatre.depaul.edu/news-and-events/Pages/Press-Room.aspx. I suggest that this building be included in the history section and under the college section for the Theatre School.

You may also want to include this recent ranking of the Theatre School by the Hollywood Reporter: http://newsroom.depaul.edu/NewsReleases/showNews.aspx?NID=2638

In fall 2011, DePaul also opened an Arts & Letters Building in Lincoln Park -- it was dedicated in January 2012. Info about that is here: http://newsroom.depaul.edu/NewsReleases/showNews.aspx?NID=2459

Thanks for considering these edits. I work at DePaul, so I can't make them. I'll make another edit request in a few weeks when fall enrollment data are available. Kris (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the news about the new buildings. The part about the ranking of the Theatre School sounds like marketing puffery to me, especially with the DePaul source. I don't think it belongs, but if another impartial editor with more knowledge of the credibility and relevance of theater school rankings thinks that's significant and long-term enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, then have them comment here and go ahead and make it. Neil916 (Talk) 08:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: The third sentence was revised from its original structure to now read "It has since grown to be, as of 2013, the largest Catholic university in the United States." DePaul passed St. John's to become the largest Catholic university in 1998. The existing sentence structure makes it sound like a recent change. Perhaps it could read "Since 1998, DePaul has been the largest Catholic university in the United States." Kris (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither would be correct, but "In 1998, DePaul became the largest Catholic university in the United States" would be better. Even better would be to use a more precise term than "largest". Does that mean largest by enrollment, staff, graduates, what? Neil916 (Talk) 08:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

request edit

Fall enrollment statistics are now available at http://oipr.depaul.edu/Market_Analytics/factfile/sect1/table1_1.asp?year=2014&termname=Autumn&term=1&termnum=1&termlaw=7

Please update the third paragraph or authorize me to do so as follows: The university enrolls around 16,150 undergraduate and about 7,600 graduate/law students, making DePaul the 13th largest private universities by enrollment in the United States, and the largest private university in Illinois.

Please update the information box at the upper right with the following Undergraduate enrollment: 16,153 (fall 2014 data) Graduate enrollment: 7,646 (802 Law)

We have three satellite campuses, not four.

If you like, I can provide more current ranking information and suggest other minor changes (prominent faculty, removing faculty who have left) to the college sections for you to consider.

I work at DePaul, so it's COI for me to make this change. Kris (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This looks very uncontroversial so I think it'd be perfectly fine for you to update the article. But thanks so much for asking and being very transparent about your COI! ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

request edit

Resubmitting this request: Re this sentence under the College of Law heading: Notable faculty include M. Cherif Bassiouni, who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 for his work on behalf of the International Criminal Court, Alberto Coll, former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush, and Andrea Lyon, director of the Center for Justice in Capital Cases.

Andrea Lyon is no longer with DePaul and Cherif Bassiouni is now emeritus. Suggested revision:

Notable faculty members include Alberto Coll, former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush, and Patty Gerstenblith, appointed by Barack Obama to serve as the chair of the President's Cultural Property Advisory Committee in the U.S. Department of State. Emeritus faculty member M. Cherif Bassiouni, who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 for his work on behalf of the International Criminal Court, remains active in the college.

More detail on Gerstenblith is available here: http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/patty-gerstenblith.aspx .

Other faculty who could be considered are: Susan Bandes – criminal law, emotion in law. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/susan-bandes.aspx Brian Havel – international aviation law. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/brian-havel.aspx Roberta Kwall – intellectual property law. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/roberta-kwall.aspx Joshua Sarnoff – patent law; USPTO appointment. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/joshua-sarnoff.aspx Jeffrey Shaman – constitutional law. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/jeffrey-shaman.aspx

I work at DePaul, so it's COI for me to make this change. Kris (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Kris (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting the change. However, none of this is referenced to third parties, so it all ends up being original research by WP guidelines. I admit that I skeptical about including names of officers in institutional pages, since those change frequently. And "notable faculty" has a promotional air. It might be best to simply include links to relevant pages on the institution's web site. (This is the same for for-profit corporations as well, where I see similar problems.) LaMona (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

request edit

Re this sentence under the College of Law heading: Notable faculty include M. Cherif Bassiouni, who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 for his work on behalf of the International Criminal Court, Alberto Coll, former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush, and Andrea Lyon, director of the Center for Justice in Capital Cases.

Andrea Lyon is no longer with DePaul and Cherif Bassiouni is now emeritus. Suggested revision:

Notable faculty members include Alberto Coll, former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush, and Patty Gerstenblith, appointed by Barack Obama to serve as the chair of the President's Cultural Property Advisory Committee in the U.S. Department of State. Emeritus faculty member M. Cherif Bassiouni, who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 for his work on behalf of the International Criminal Court, remains active in the college.

More detail on Gerstenblith is available here: http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/patty-gerstenblith.aspx .

Other faculty who could be considered are: Susan Bandes – criminal law, emotion in law. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/susan-bandes.aspx Brian Havel – international aviation law. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/brian-havel.aspx Roberta Kwall – intellectual property law. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/roberta-kwall.aspx Joshua Sarnoff – patent law; USPTO appointment. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/joshua-sarnoff.aspx Jeffrey Shaman – constitutional law. http://law.depaul.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/jeffrey-shaman.aspx

I work at DePaul, so it's COI for me to make this change. Kris (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the update. Not sure about the other notable faculty members; if you write up a passage explaining why they are notable perhaps it could be added. But I'll have to wait and see. Altamel (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice LaMona's opposing opinion above. Well, I dug up some sources for each of the faculty: In my opinion, calling them "notable" faculty isn't that promotional either. Notable just means "of note", not much more. Altamel (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on DePaul University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060908030903/http://newsline.depaul.edu/newslineadmin/anmviewer.asp?a=620 to http://newsline.depaul.edu/newslineadmin/anmviewer.asp?a=620
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100412040159/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com:80/best-colleges/service-learning-programs to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/service-learning-programs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026035714/http://www.publicservice.depaul.edu:80/index.asp to http://www.publicservice.depaul.edu/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Campuses

Completed in 1992, Richardson Library faces the Quad in the heart of DePaul University's Lincoln Park Campus.

DePaul's two primary campuses are in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago and in the downtown Loop area. The university has suburban campuses in Naperville and O'Hare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgallagh (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Suburban Campuses

DePaul has suburban campuses in O'Hare and Naperville . The suburban campuses primarily serve part-time professional students completing undergraduate and graduate degrees.

I work at DePaul, so it's COI for me to make these changes. Kris (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on DePaul University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070809054239/http://studentaffairs.depaul.edu:80/handbook/code1.html to http://studentaffairs.depaul.edu/handbook/code1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080216002041/http://psychology.unc.edu/news/Documents/jlclinpsy-top-producers-1.pdf to http://psychology.unc.edu/news/Documents/jlclinpsy-top-producers-1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419110258/http://www.learning.depaul.edu:80/standard/content_areas/content.asp?area=comprehensive&primary=concentrations to http://www.learning.depaul.edu/standard/content_areas/content.asp?area=comprehensive&primary=concentrations
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419052320/http://www.learning.depaul.edu:80/standard/content_areas/content.asp?area=comprehensive&primary=bios to http://learning.depaul.edu/standard/content_areas/content.asp?area=comprehensive&primary=bios

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

request edit

I'm requesting permission to update our enrollment statistics to fall 2015 data. Undergraduate: 15,961 Graduate: 7,578 (including 778 in Law). Online resources is at https://irma.depaul.edu/irmadocs/EMM%202015%20Enrollment%20Summary.pdf.

Also, we closed a suburban campus, so I would like to update these sections as follows:

Weasel Words Tag

"DePaul's philosophy program is also widely noted for excellence in education and research, and is also noted for it's graduate studies program in continental philosophy."

Quotes such as these compromise neutrality; this article ALREADY reads like an ad as is!

Also "Some supporters of the University have argued that these concerns have been blown out of proportion or that the recent controversies are part of a concerted effort by certain campus Republicans to gain publicity." is loaded with bias.

Basketball

There have been numerous attempts to remove information about the DePaul basketball team's 17 December 2005 loss to Old Dominion by a score of 87-43. This is an important and unbiased fact about the University's history that should be kept.

Removal of law program information

I moved a bunch of info about the law program to the DePaul University College of Law page in order to avoid duplication

Finkelstein's affiliation

DePaul professor Norman Finkelstein is part of the political science department, which in turn is part of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences. I moved his name and link from the College of Commerce, with which he is not affiliated, to the proper college. Please don't re-insert him into the College of Commerce -- that is an error of fact.

Ward Churchill bomb threat

To my knowledge there was no bomb threat in regards to Ward Churchill's appearance. Unless proven, this sentence should be removed.

Attendence was limited after the Republican group asked to attend a Churchill workshop the next day:

From FIRE:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6618.html

New college from College of Liberal Arts and Sciences split and new name for School of Education.

DePaul University recently split their College of Liberal Arts and Sciences into 2 colleges: the new College of Science and Health & also renamed the college to College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, as only social sciences and liberal arts were left in the college. Also, towards the end of the 2010-2011 academic year the School of Education was renamed the College of Education. The Cultural Center was also renamed the Center for Intercultural Programs during the 2010-2011 school year.

Breaking DePaul's History Section into Subsections

Hello,

I think it would be beneficial to break up DePaul's history section into subsections. For instance, origins, early years, DePaul during WWII, controversies, 21st Century. I also propose removing the bullet-points found in the controversies sub-section as it breaks the flow of the page.

If no one objects, I will be making those changes within the next few days. Khalidmilan (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with this. It would make the article flow much better. I don't know if controversies belongs in the history section though; normally that gets its own header but I"d be okay with it either way. TJD2 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback! Khalidmilan (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that I don't think it makes much sense to place the controversies section in the middle of the history one. When reading a history section you expect to be reading through history as it happened, but currently it jumps from 1978 to 2005 at the start of the controversy section, and then from 2016 back to the 80s at the end of it. It also seems strange that although the university was founded in 1898, the earliest controversy is 2005. Surely earlier controversies exist?Peeky Chew (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Section requires Black Lives Matter incident

• My edit yesterday has been wrongly removed as 'vandalism' and I can't re-insert it as the page is now protected. The text itself (which I reproduce below) is a neutral summary of Milo Yiannopoulos' recent cancelled talk:

"*In May 2016, protesters disrupted a talk being given on campus by conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, one protester even threatening Yiannopoulos with physical violence. However, university administrators ordered the police not to intervene, and as a result, the talk was cancelled." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.121.19 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• The article needs to cover the recent/ongoing Black Lives Matter/Milo Yiannopoulos controversy. The are numerous sources for this currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.34.217 (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That would seem pretty obviously to run afoul of WP:RECENT. Searching for "black lives matter depaul university" on Google seems to turn up only one source from outside the fever swamps of the right. Maybe there are more if you use different terms, but on its face that hardly seems like a notable event. And DePaul is a major national university; if we listed every occasion that it has received that minimal level of news coverage, this would surely become one of Wikipedia's longest articles. -- Visviva (talk)

This addition should more refer to Milo Yianoppolous and the controversy it caused when school administrators tried to cancel his speaking engagement, then allegedly told police and security to not remove protesters on stage disrupting the event, forcing a cancellation of the event. This was covered by major national news sources and was on TV so it undoubtedly meets notability standards. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I support adding a brief description. This was a bit more than "minor news" in some circles, Washington Post had an article, and it called for a campus president response and numerous faculty responses. It is a controversy. There is no compelling reason to not add a brief comment. Cc131291 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)cc131291

I also agree that there should at least be a brief description of the events. There are now multiple different sources which have covered the story as it has progressed. I don't know what exactly the previous person means by "fever swamps of the right", but I think this shows that he has an unhealthy bias against adding this to the article.Peeky Chew (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This may merit a brief mention but no more than a single sentence. And I don't even think that it merits that much coverage unless it leads to long-term consequences or reliable, non-partisan sources connect it to a larger pattern of events. Without either of those conditions being met this is just a brief, flash-in-the-pan news item without any long-term effect or large scale interest. ElKevbo (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I support adding more than a sentence. It needs ample sourcing but it was a significant controversy that occurred. Recent or not, it is noteworthy to mention. For better flow I say there should be as much information as the other controversies.TJD2 (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• The DePaul University obviously doesn't care about free speech and the physical integrity of guest speakers. Look at the Facebook page: 13K+ voters say that this college is the worst university ever. It has a ranking of 1.1 - which is very bad, if not the worst university ranking of all American universities on Facebook. It's important information and there has been written a lot about it. It has to written in the article, even though DePaul staff might don't want it. --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It's a little hard to follow the edit warring at the moment, because large chunks of unrelated text seem to be getting moved around at the same time. But the substantive dispute appears to be over the same text cited at the top of this thread, referencing a "Huffington Post Contributors" post. (A previous edit about the event had used Breitbart.com as a reference, so I guess this is a step up.) With that in mind, it seems at least mildly relevant to note that the author of that post is a college student without evident journalistic qualifications, and that the footer on the article states "[t]his post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform" and "[c]ontributors control their own work and post freely to our site." I'm sure he's a nice kid, but this is about one step up from an anonymous tumblog. Even if we suppose for a moment that Huffpo Contributors meets WP:RS, that kind of sourcing doesn't really establish the encyclopedic significance of the event. If this event actually attracted significant attention from national media, why aren't those sources being added instead? -- Visviva (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• It seems as though you are trying to discredit the source because you don't agree with it. You have already displayed a bias by using the phrase "fever swamps of the right", so that leads me to this conclusion. If Huffington Post saw fit to hire a college student to write for them, we should not doubt their qualifications just based on age. Huffington Post is a reliable news source, and a reputable website. There is a clear consensus to keep the entry about Yiannopoulos, so if you would like to improve the article you are free to add sources that back up the entry. TJD2 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. Yes, sources cited in Wikipedia must comply with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And yes, Breitbart.com is neither one, and Huffpo personal blogs are also generally neither one. And no, my stating these obvious and uncontroversial facts does not mean I'm biased. 2. I do not see anything resembling a consensus on this page -- excluding SPAs and anons, it looks like about an even split. In any case, a localized consensus cannot override core Wikipedia policies. 3. As I said before: if this actually attracted significant national coverage, why aren't those sources being cited here? And why don't they turn up in a Google search? -- Visviva (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• DePaul student here. The reference from the Huffington Post is actually a personal blog/ commentary rather than a factual source. Also, saying that the University "Ordered the police not to intervene" is very subjective. What is the source for this? a personal blog? there is no factual evidence to support this. DePaul is a huge national university, and covering every single minor event at the university will warrant myriad sections, categories and paragraphs. Thus, I do not think the incident should be mentioned. But, if it were to be mentioned, it has to be objective. In its current form, it is subjective. Khalidmilan (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do understand your concern, but attacking the source's credibility doesn't do either of us any good. Many of the sources on Wikipedia are Op-ed pieces. This is just one person's account of the events, and should not be dismissed based on the grounds that it includes his opinion. I must say, with you being a student at DePaul University, it becomes even clearer that you are trying to defend your school's reputation and that editing this article may be a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you are not allowed to have an opinion though, but we must take into consideration the information you have given us when weighing that opinion. It's the same reason we do not have ownership of articles. TJD2 (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  If you actually believe that op-ed pieces are acceptable sources on Wikipedia (for their factual assertions, not the fact that the writer has a particular opinion), I implore you to consult WP:RS and WP:V. -- Visviva (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Further, examining the reliability of sources is exactly what we should be doing. TJD2, please review the policies that Visviva links above. ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There are MANY op-ed sources on Wikipedia. Just because it has an opinion in it doesn't mean it is invalidated. Not every source is dry with nothing but encyclopedic facts. Every news source has some sort of angle. CNN and Fox for example are practically the exact opposite when it comes to this, yet they are still considered reliable sources when it comes to political articles. This is just one of many examples of why opinion articles are indeed relevant. TJD2 (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• If the incident warrants entry to DePaul's page, mainstream media would have covered the story. If the incident were to be added, there has to be a neutral reliable source. Saying that the administration ordered the police to stand down because some guy on a personal blog said it is appalling. I agree with Visviva's latest edit. Khalidmilan (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: The sources presented so far are not convincing and do not appear to meet our standards for reliability. Editors who believe this material should be included must present reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the person who originally made the request. I've been reading what everyone's been saying and I'd just like to say that the Chicago Tribune has covered the story as well:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-depaul-speech-milo-yiannopolous-breitbart-edit-0601-jm-20160531-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-depaul-milo-yiannopoulos-protest-trump-breitbart-zorn-perspec-20160531-column.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.123.253 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• comment - There needs to be consensus for inclusion since this is new material. --Malerooster (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Again, seeing that DePaul is a large national university, I do not think that this incident is worthy of entry. As for the new references provided, I certainly think the first one is a at least more reliable than the personal commentary blog previously provided. But, taking a look at the url gives you everything; they are both op-eds. I am against the inclusion. However, if the consensus says otherwise, the reference has to be reliable and neutral mainstream-media source.Khalidmilan (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• The consensus is to add it but find better sources, so that's what I am going to do. If there is a problem with the tone maybe it should be reworded, but it is a notable controversy that occured at DePaul. I will be looking for some more sources before I restore the content. TJD2 (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• No, the consensus is to add a reliable source, then to agree whether to add it or not. You keep reverting to the old version, even when others tell you that there is no clear consensus. I will report you for disruptive editing if you do not stop. Also, looking at your phrasing, it seems that you are the one with the bias. Khalidmilan (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not the one going around saying things like Milo is a "toxic figure", and that you are a student at DePaul. It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt you are only interested in protecting your school's reputation. I am adding and citing many new references from professional news outlets such as Washington Times and DePaulia Online to back up the events. I am not just restoring old content, but rewording and adding new content as well. TJD2 (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the fact that your phrasing of the event is more balanced now, there is still no consensus to add the entry. The consensus is split up, and the ones that would like to see an entry to Milo's event stated it should not be more than a sentence. Yours is a full paragraph. I will not get into an editing war with you, as I prefer to wait for the other users to weigh in. Khalidmilan (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• TJD2, most users who supported adding an entry suggested a brief description. Your entry is a full paragraph. I have revised it and wrote a brief description instead. Let me know what you think, I can always change it back if you would like ( taking other users' opinion into account)Khalidmilan (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Khalid however much you wish to summarize this, it is not better reading flow to merge it into the preceding paragraph. That monster is large enough as is and could do with a soit itself. A time jump between discussing a 2011 controversy and a 2016 one is the perfect place for a paragraph break, which enhances legibility. Ranze (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I like this much better, and I agree with Ranze's latest edit. The flow was a bit disjointed how Khalidmilan originally wrote it. Nice work. I would like to point out only one person mentioned only having a single sentence, but that's alright. It's fine as is. Glad we could come to a compromise. TJD2 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph currently reads:

"In May 2016, Black Lives Matter protestors interrupted the speech of Milo Yiannopoulos. The event was subsequently cancelled."

Does anyone object to amending it to say:

"In May 2016, Black Lives Matter protestors interrupted the speech of Milo Yiannopoulos. Police and campus security, although present, did not intervene and the event was subsequently cancelled."

In my opinion this inclusion is necessary, reasonable and concise. The fact that police and security did not intervene is fundamental to the entire story - it's the very reason the story was reported, and this fact is clearly supported by the sources. However, this wording avoids the contentious claims people objected to before (about why police and security did not intervene.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.33 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you're insisting on adding (or retaining, if others originally added them) editorials and opinion pieces when we have perfectly good sources already in the article. Unless you're discussing the opinions of various media figures and others - an addition to which many editors would probably object - you need to limit your sources to news items and others that discuss the events in a manner that we consider reliable. Editorials and opinion pieces are not generally considered to be reliable (or noteworthy) for facts other than the opinions and viewpoints of the author(s). ElKevbo (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for your response. However, you don't actually address my proposal above for the inclusion of the fact that police did not intervene. Do you have any comment on that?

Secondly, regarding the sources, all I object to is hypocrisy and double-standards. I have no problem being told, 'we had a consensus, prove your case.' That makes sense. What I object to is the same individual effectively saying, 'I however can deviate from the consensus at will by deleting sources - and if you disagree with me, you have to prove your case as well.' Especially when the same individual is blatantly out to censor this story as much as he can to protect his university's reputation. Now that can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.33 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hello. In regards to your sources, they are op-eds and they are considered unreliable. I also question their neutrality, seeing that one source is from Breitbart. Furthermore, they are not relevant to the entry at all. The entry provided does not talk about the effects on Trump's message for instance, your source talks greatly about it. We have a neutral, relevant, and a reliable source. No need to add more. Khalidmilan (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you also have nothing to say about my suggested inclusion. Can I assume then you agree with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.33 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Do controversies really belong in a university's Wiki page?

Browsing through the Wikipedia pages of many American universities, I seldom find any controversy sections. For instance, Mizzou, which had a huge racism controversy last fall that was covered extensively through domestic and international mainstream media, does not have a controversy section. The same applies to many universities that have had major controversies like Boston University, Northeastern University, Emory University, Stanford etc ..

I suggest either integrating the controversy section into the history section, or removing the controversies all together. Let me know your thoughts. If there were no objections, I will remove the controversy subsection and merge it into the history section. If consensus was found, I will remove controversial stories all together. Khalidmilan (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The final phrase there - "If consensus was found, I will remove controversial stories all together" betrays Khalidmilan's true desires. TJD2 was spot on earlier. This individual is primarily interested in protecting his university's reputation by censoring all criticism of it on Wikipedia. That's not going to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.33 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If there are college or university articles that omit noteworthy events that happen to be controversies or negative events then those events should be added to those articles. For what it's worth, I strongly favor placing those events into the history sections of articles where they can be placed into a more useful and interesting context for readers. However, that rarely happens; I imagine that it requires an understanding of context and history that most Wikipedia editors do not have or are unwilling to spend the time developing. In other words, it's convenient and easy to just dump material into a standalone section. It's understandable behavior but it makes for weaker articles. ElKevbo (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I think it's fine as is. The controversy section should stay; why go to all the efforts of reformatting it just to erase it. Besides, just because one article doesn't have a controversy section isn't an argument for omission. Mizzou's controversy was more rooted in censorship of free speech (I need some muscle over here) than racism, but due to WP:NOTFORUM I won't get into that any more. I just wanted to correct you on that small detail. TJD2 (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• To be honest, I was not aware of the full context of Mizzou's controversy, It was just on the news all the time. Thanks for correcting me. My initial suggestion was to merge DePaul's controversy subsection into the history section (In text). This is the approach of many of the universities's Wikipedia articles. For instance, we can add the 2005 controversy to the 21st century subsection of DePaul's history. What do you guys )? I think this is the same approach that ElKevbo mentioned earlier. Khalidmilan (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Guys, I have integrated and merged the controversy section into the history section. I also made sure the chronology is in order, as it was not the case in the last version. I think it looks much better now. Let me know what you guys think, and if any changes need to be made. Khalidmilan (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Please don't change things without discussing them first here. There was no consensus on merging the sections, just your word. It's split down the middle as of now, so hardly a consensus. TJD2 (talk)
• If you would like talk about consensus, there was no consensus on you adding a whole controversy section . The point of this was to suggest integrating the controversy section into the history section, not adding a separate controversy section like you did. This suggestion is also the approach that ElKevbo would like to see, as the user mentioned it earlier. There is also no need to remove all my work without discussing this here first, as I worked hard on it. Will revert it back. Khalidmilan (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Actually there was. Most users here agreed controversies are out of place in the history section, so your argument here holds no water. TJD2 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Where did "most users agree controversies are out of place in the history section?" I'm not seeing that conversation and consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Please Read Khalid's section "Breaking up DePaul's history section into subsections". TJD2 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You mean the one above where three editors participated in a discussion: one proposed the edits, one (you) were luke warm about them, and another editor was also luke warm about them? That little discussion is far from being anything like the consensus that you've claimed it is! Is there some other discussion that you might be thinking of? ElKevbo (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok people, I'm done. I could stay and argue more, but if I do I'm going to get completely obsessive over this. I came here to add what I thought was a completely uncontroversial and objective story to this article and it's snowballed into insanity. And I have better things to do than get obsessive over winning internet arguments. My proposed edit is still sitting there above, like a tiny voice of objective sanity in a whirlpool of stupid. If anyone wants to insert it, feel free. That's it. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.33 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to point out the only page Khalid has edited since returning from almost a 2 year editing hiatus has been DePaul's page. This says to me that as a student he is trying to claim owneuorship of the article. Everything must be done his way and if it isn't he will revert until people stop caring and quit out of frustration. I think this needs admin attention, but I already tried going down that route and nothing was done! IP I will be adding this to your talk page as well to make sure you see it. TJD2 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have reported you.I could have stooped to your level and called your own integrity into question, using the same method that you do. But, even though DePaul is the only university that you have edited, and even though you edited quite a few anti-feminists pages ( this is relevant to Milo and his famous phrase,"Feminism is cancer"), I choose not to question your intentions. The fact is you added a biased entry with biased and unreliable sources. When you were called out for it, you ignored it. When consensus was found on adding a brief entry with a single reliable source, you tried another to show your bias. My suggestion was to integrate the controversy subsection into the history section, but you ended up creating a whole controversy section. You claimed consensus, but there was none. I reverted the DePaul page to the previous version.Khalidmilan (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• And I reverted yours to the last edit we all agreed on. I say we just end this right here and now and leave well enough alone. TJD2 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have worked hard on the latest revision.I have kept every single controversy, but I integrated it into the history section rather than having a controversy subsection. This is the approach of many of Wikipedia pages of colleges. I have also revised the history chronologically to make sure that the controversies fit into the history section. This makes the page much much better, with a better reading experience. Are you opposing this? if yes, why? if not, then I would like to revert it back because I believe it makes the page better. I would also like to hear ElKevbo's take on this, as I think what I implemented is his suggestionKhalidmilan (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you're both wrong. As I said above, I don't think that the controversies section belongs in the middle of the history section. It breaks up the timeline and makes for poor reading, and is not inline with any other Wikipedia articles I've read. But simply merging the controversy section into history does not work either, as it is clearly written to be a separate section and again breaks up the flow of the article. I think the controversy section should be completely separated from the history section, as it is on most articles. I would also like to add that the amount of work an editor has put into something cannot be used as justification for changes.Peeky Chew (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That was one of my edits because we all agreed it flowed poorly in the history section, but if we change it Khalid will probably throw a fit again and we'll be back to square one. I personally believe we should just leave well enough alone since this is the last edit we all agreed on. TJD2 (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

We didn't all agree to that. The idea that "controversies" are somehow separate from the histories of colleges and universities is a widespread problem in many articles. It's usually a due weight problem to have specific, major sections that focus on controversies without placing them into historical context. It's also a huge contributor to the (often correct) perception that many of these articles are overly positive because of course they're overly positive if editors believe that negative information should be removed from the larger history of the subjects! In most cases, controversies (a) arise from a historical context (e.g., years of financial troubles, decades of misplaced priorities and concentrated power, a long legacy of discrimination) and (b) have significant and long-term impacts on institutional priorities, organization, and culture. Presenting them as isolated events does a disservice to our readers and (usually) shows a lack of knowledge and professionalism on the part of Wikipedia editors. We can and should do better. ElKevbo (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Peeky Chew, my version was not in the middle of the history section. I sorted it out chronologically and there was no issue with the reading flow. Here is my version :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DePaul_University&oldid=724873219

I think it serves the page, as a whole, much much better. You guys should decide whether to revert the current version to my version or not, as I do not want to get into disputes. Khalidmilan (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DePaul University. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1575/report.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting edit/approval for updated university statistics

I work at DePaul and therefore have a COI. Could a neutral editor either make these changes or approve me doing so? Fall 2016 enrollment 23,110, including 15,407 undergraduates, 806 law and 6,897 graduate students.

https://irma.depaul.edu/FFPlus/factfile/sect1/table1_1.aspx?year=2016

Thank you. Kris (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you may go ahead with the changes. Enrollment updates are generally considered uncontroversial and objective, so I do not foresee any problems if you make the edits yourself. Altamel (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DePaul University. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603205308/http://www.depaul.edu/about/Pages/key-facts.aspx to http://www.depaul.edu/about/Pages/key-facts.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603205308/http://www.depaul.edu/about/Pages/key-facts.aspx to http://www.depaul.edu/about/Pages/key-facts.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1575/report.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I've been trying to add the following to the page:

Subsequently, the university banned pro-life posters from displaying posters reading 'All Lives' Matter' on the grounds that such posters would antagonise the Black Lives Matter group. It also banned Ben Shapiro from speaking on campus due to security concerns.

I think it's a fairly simple and uncontroversial addition which fairly summarises a recent issue. However, some guy has repeatedly removed it on the grounds that I have to get 'consensus' first. But he refuses to actually say what he objects to about it. So...is there actually a problem with this?81.152.10.249 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DePaul University. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325191328/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings-2015/national-universities-rank-all.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings-2015/national-universities-rank-all.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Want to update last paragraph in DePaul page - Student Life > Athletics. "The stadium is expected to be in use by the beginning of the 2017 - 2018 season."

I work for DePaul and am asking for are asking either for permission to proceed or for a neutral editor to review and decide what to do with the information. 

Pvdepaul (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on DePaul University. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823121048/http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/undergraduate_mba_profiles/depaul.html to http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/undergraduate_mba_profiles/depaul.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805020306/http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen05252007.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen05252007.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929133538/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13052 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13052
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728034924/http://www.depaul.edu/commerceexchange/college-celebrates.html to http://www.depaul.edu/commerceexchange/college-celebrates.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.businessweek.com/print/bschools/content/mar2010/bs20100322_689346.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130709070430/http://las.depaul.edu/About/index.asp to http://las.depaul.edu/About/index.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1575/report.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new page for DePaul University president

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AFC

 – The proper forum for this request is Articles for Creation. Spintendo      00:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a conflict of interest because I work at DePaul University. I would like to create a new page for A. Gabriel Esteban, the new president of the university, or work with an unaffiliated editor to create a new page. I am a newer editor so appreciate assistance.

Here is a proposed entry:

A. Gabriel Esteban, Ph.D., became the 12th president of DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois, on July 1, 2017. He is DePaul’s first lay president. Esteban has served higher education throughout his career at universities in New Jersey, Arkansas, Texas and the Philippines.

Career

Immediately prior to his appointment at DePaul, Esteban was president of Seton Hall University from 2011 to 2017. He ascended to Seton Hall’s presidency from the post of provost and chief academic officer. His accomplishments included implementing a successful strategic plan and campus master plan. Under his leadership, academic selectivity and student diversity increased as undergraduate enrollment expanded by 15 percent. He also led effective changes in enrollment management and financial aid strategies. During his tenure, the university collaborated with Hackensack Meridian Health to create the only private medical school in New Jersey.

Esteban received a bachelor of science in mathematics and MBA at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. He also earned a master of science in Japanese business studies, Chaminade University, Honolulu, HI, and his Ph.D. in business administration at the University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA. He completed the Japan-America Institute for Management Science program in Honolulu, HI, and MLE Program: Leading Transformation & Change at Harvard University, Boston, MA.

Memberships and Professional Service

Esteban is an active participant in Chicago’s civic and social communities. He is a member of the Chicago’s Economic Club, Chicago Club, Commercial Club and University Club.

He has provided extensive service to higher education. Currently, he is on the board of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. He served as a commissioner for the Commission on Inclusion of the American Council on Education. Esteban also served as team chair on regional accreditations for the New England Association of Schools and Colleges and Higher Learning Commission (HCC), and is a past member of the Accreditation Review Council and a consultant for the HCC.

He is an advocate for students of color. He is an emeritus board member of Asian Pacific Americans in Higher Education, and is a founding board member and former vice chair of the Asian Pacific Islander American Association of Colleges and Universities.

Esteban is active in the governing of collegiate athletics, serving as a founding board member of the Big East Conference and a member of its finance committee from 2010 to the present. He also was a member of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) Commission on Institutional Performance from 2014 to 2016.

Serving his discipline (marketing) in both teaching and research, Esteban is an editorial board member of the Philippine Management Review, published by the College of Business Administration at the University of the Philippines. He also is a recipient of the University of Houston Enron Teaching Excellence Award.

Honors and Awards

Top 50 Graduate and Postgraduate Alumni, Graduate Division, University of California Irvine, 2016

Leadership Award by Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, Inc., Los Angeles 2016

Great Immigrant by Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2015

Named to NJBIZ Power 100 and Health Care Power 50 by NJ Biz, New Jersey, 2015, 2016

Excellence in Education Award, Chicago Filipino-American Hall of Fame Awards, 2015

Empowerment Award for Excellence in Education, Fiesta in America, New Jersey, 2015

Appointed Knight of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher, Eastern Province of New York, 2014

Certificate of Achievement, Embassy of the Philippines, 2013

Most Distinguished Alumnus, University of the Philippines Alumni Association of New Jersey, 2012

Feature Box content – photo note: copyright DePaul University --

12th President of DePaul University

Incumbent

Assumed Office: July 1, 2017

Preceded by: Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, C.M.

Personal details

Spouse: Josephine Esteban, MBA, MA

Alma mater: University of California, Irvine; Chaminade University of Honolulu, Hawaii; University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City

Website Office of the President

References

Grasgreen, Allie, “New Voice for Asian Students,” June 28, 2011, Inside Higher Ed. Accessed February 19, 2018.

External Links

DePaul University

Hackensack Meridian Health

National Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Research in Education

Philippine Management Review

|}

Denise Mattson (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AFC

 – The proper forum for this request is Articles for Creation. Regards, Spintendo      00:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)