Wikipedia

Talk:Fordham University/Archive 2

< Talk:Fordham University
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1 Archive 2

Rankings

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Some time ago this article was the subject of a peer-review by editors who had not contributed to the content. I seem to remember that one of the results of that review was to change the format of the "Rankings" section from a bulleted list of phrases to paragraph form, as per Wiki standards for encyclopedic content. As the purpose of the peer-review audit was, in part, to raise the ranking of the article the editors dilligently worked on the section to conform to the formatting and style suggested. That has all apparently been reverted. A lot of good work went into this article that was slowly chipped-away at as some of the older editors started to divide their attention with other articles, and the amount of dilligence necessary to protect such edits does not seem to be available any longer, and recently more concentrated amounts of edits in large chunks are rapidly wearing away at gains made at making this a highly ranked Wikipedia article. Shoreranger (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know to which edits you are referring, but I defend all of the revisions I have made to this article. I am an expert on this subject, and I believe that I have greatly increased the quality of the article, even if some disagree. As for the "Rankings" section, how long ago was this peer review performed? It seems to me that it is much easier to understand rankings data when it is in bullet form. Surferdude09 (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Per our manual of style, prose is almost always better than bulleted lists, with obvious exceptions being where the list is a simple list of nouns (like a list of notable people). I can understand why this section seems like it would be better in a list...but if we cut some of the less important rankings out (we don't need to list every single one), this could be manageable in prose. We might want to start by considered a cut off date--like, for example, no rankings before 2012, unless they're really special (like if they were top 10% in some ranking in an earlier year). That's just an arbitrary number, though, so we can hash it out together what should be best.Qwyrxian (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Level of detail

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

Is the amount of detail included in the article appropriate? At specific dispute thus far is the "Performing Arts" section, but the broader question is whether information (outside of basic facts) which is verified only by the school's website should be included. The talk page section above (Talk: Fordham University#Excessive) has explanations for the positions of the involved parties as well as the input of a Third Opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I am consistently surprised each time I go through GA that I am usually encouraged to add more materials using primary sources, but if we look at this article (10,000 words) and we look at WP:LENGTH, and you follow the logic that we probably don't want multiple articles on a university with only 1,100 staff, I would say it could be cut at least in half (at least). Now that I glance through the prior discussion, I think Qwyrxian's position is obvious and would be widely supported by most any editor here. The issue is a social one - Surfer has spent a lot of time on it and it will be painful for him to see it axed in half. RfC and 3PO is a good way to develop consensus, so he doesn't feel like one editor specifically is picking on him or his work, but we all know what is needed and he will need to learn not to WP:OWN and be more concise in the future. Not that we don't appreciate his work, but we also want to improve it and he shouldn't take offense because someone offers criticism. CorporateM (Talk) 22:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • CorporateM, do not talk down to me as if I'm a child. I have come to accept what everyone else is already saying about Wikipedia. At first, I didn't want to believe it, but now I do: Wikipedia is no place for high-quality academic work. Rather, it is a mediocre reference source where legitimate scholars are prevented from discussing valuable information by silly regulations and incompetent watchdogs. Congratulations, Qwyrxian and friends, you've won. I won't be editing this article any longer. Rather, I've just been named an editor of the Fordham University website. See ya, losers. I'm going to go write something that people will ACTUALLY READ! This is Surferdude09, for the last time, signing off. Surferdude09 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it is that all that information could be summarized to great length. Fordham University's performing arts curiculum and extra curicular activities encompass a glee club, dance, choir, and many other disciplines that students can express themselves in.<ref></ref>. I know it's not the best NPOV but on first impression that's what I came up with. Yes it is excessive and a good place to trim the fat.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 00:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
" I won't be editing this article any longer. Rather, I've just been named an editor of the Fordham University website. See ya, losers. I'm going to go write something that people will ACTUALLY READ! This is Surferdude09, for the last time, signing off." So,despite Surferdude's allegations, I believe this is evidence that the Wikipedia system works. One person cannot hijack an article if there is enough vigilence. CorporateM, I offer one criticism to your well-thought-out response: Surferdude was not a long-time editor of this article as you imply. He certainly tried to convey an air of extensive investment to the article and Wikipedia but, as far as I am aware, he is not only a newcomer to this article but to Wikipedia as well - not that there is anything wrong with that. It does explain, however, his apparent lack of understanding of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work as well as the practical work in Wikipedia. He is likely to do much better working on the website for the institution he was trying to re-write a Wikipedia entry about, with all the obvious bias that now implies. Shoreranger (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Theoretically RfC's should run for about a month. However, in this case, the only person really objecting to the removal has since declined to pursue the matter further. I'll wait about a week or so and then start to make changes, unless someone else comes along with an alternative opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback Shoreranger. After Surfer's comments I was not entirely sure if I was really that far out of line. Him working for the university website seems to suggest a likely COI relationship of some form with the university, which tends to lead to that type of frustration. I would know most of all. I would tend to agree, great example of Wikipedia working the way it's suppose to. Hopefully I was not too hostile or stern in pointing out the social issue. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I see a few sections could be improved before sending it to GAC or FAC but the detail that's there seems to be okay, then again i've only skimmed the article... MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 14:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Then, with no disrespect intended, Matticusmadness, you really need to review the criteria. This article would be quick failed under either review process. We will never promote an article with so much information that is based upon non-independent sources.
I'm going to revert back to the more edited version, and should I ever get time/energy, I'll try to tackle more of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The subjects official website (which is considered a primary source) may indeed be used to cite information about the subject itself. This is not controversial. The page does not appear to be excessively long and the RFC does not state which information they find to be in excess. I don't see anything wrong with a quick overview.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd support an overview. As for length, I think we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. While some sections might sink close to trivia, the 1900 - 1950 history section might actually benefit from some fleshing out, for example. (No mention of its rise to national sports prominence, etc.) Shoreranger (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying it can't be used as a source. I'm saying that unless an independent source has discussed the club, there's no reason for us to mention them here. As Surfer himself said, the official homepage has thousands of pages; why would we just take anything written there and write about it here? School clubs are not worth including unless there is something that verifiably makes them special--such as national awards, discussions in newspapers, etc. This is an issue of weight. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. For example, there is no evidence that "Nevertheless, a number of student "houses" exist in the Belmont neighborhood adjacent to the Rose Hill campus that fill the traditional social role of fraternal organizations." except a broken link. If anything, that section should read, "There are no social sororities or fraternities at Fordham University. However, there are several academic Greek organizations, including Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Alpha Theta." Besotted (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[1]

Request edit on 8 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

{{request edit}}

In the "2001-present" section of this article, the sentence, "In 2003, Fordham unveiled the Toward 2016 Integrated Strategic Plan, to be implemented by the University's sesquicentennial in 2016.", is incorrect. The term "sequicentennial" would refer to the school's 150th anniversary and, since it started in 1841, Fordham will celebrate its 175th anniversary in 2016 not its 150th, which was in 1991. Replace "sequicentennial" with "175th anniversary" so that the sentence reads correctly. Sjdevil (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC) sjdevil

Actually, after looking at it, I removed both paragraphs about the "plan". At this point, it's really just speculation, a plan the university has for its future, and the only source was the plan itself. Now, if someone else independent of the university saw fit to comment on the plan, we could reinclude it, though we'd have to rephrase because it wasn't neutral as written. Qwyrxian (talk)

"Jesuit Tradition"

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recall when I attended in they did use that mealy-mouthed phrase: "in the Jesuit Tradition", but happily they are more straight forward about the University's Jesuit and Catholic nature today. In fact your link footnoting that quote nowhere contains that phrase. In fact, the statement on the linked page begins: "We’re a Jesuit, Catholic university." Though those affiliations are listed in the side bar, the actual article seems to obscure them. http://www.fordham.edu/info/20057/about http://www.fordham.edu/info/20961/history_and_mission/2997/mission_statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.242.225 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fordham 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:

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) 19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Fordham 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:

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) 15:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fordham 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:

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) 05:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.fordham.edu/faq/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fordham_University/Archive_2&oldid=1136733941"