Talk:University of Notre Dame/Archive 4

Merger proposal
Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies has existed as an unsourced stub for most of its life (I just added its sole ref, to its own website), and has received little attention (no substantive edits in nearly 4 years). I am therefore proposing merging it to this article, into 'Graduate and professional schools'. HrafnTalkStalk 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merged. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

mention that females are allowed admission in the opening section
Since it looks like you're going after a GA nomination, I'd suggest you add in the fact that females are now allowed in in the opening section. The opening section mentions that Notre Dame was founded as an all boys school, and to the casual reader (and someone who doesn't really want to read the entire article), you get the impression that it still is an all boys school.

Btornado (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added that information. I wasn't sure where it would fit best, so I stuck it in right after the sentence about being founded as an all-male school. Loves  Macs  (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Donations by Kroc's wife
Kroc is not the founder of Mc. Donalds. He bought it from the two Mc. Donald brothers who started the company. His claim to fame is that he was responsible for its growth into the mega corporation it is today by pioneering the modern franchise. I'm going to change it, but I need a source if someone can provide one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.169.62 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama controversy
I noticed a recent and notable controversy about Obama receiving a recognition from Notre Dame, even though he has promised to give more money for abortions. Apart from this, it is only one of many affairs which in recent times have tainted Notre Dame's reputation among Church leaders, because of a long-lasting institutional and theological dissent to Humanae Vitae. ADM (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to pander to this tripe by responding, but as a graduate of the school I feel I must. Notre Dame is NOT a church. It is a school. They are there to educate students by providing insights, education and inspiration. Not every speaker or honoree will agree with everything the church has to say, nor should they. This is not a "controvery" that belongs in an article about a university. 70.102.24.186 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)LS


 * In that case, Notre Dame should seriously consider a total secularization from the Church and remove its Jesuit/Catholic status. Even then, the bishops could be allowed to sue Notre Dame because it has a misleading name, pretending to be affiliated to the Church when it is really not at all. ADM (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out that Notre Dame tacitly supports abortion because the university has invited the President of the United States to campus. This one act has irreconcilably severed its connection with the Catholic Church.  Why don't you go flame on some other talk pages?  There are ways to write about this "controversy" in an encyclopedic manner.  Obviously, you have no interest in doing that.  --Pgp688 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't anything to contribute to the original issue being discussed, I think it is worth responding to the previous comment, Notre Dame is a Catholic University, but it is not a Jesuit one. It is sponsored by the Congregation of the Holy Cross.--Mitamarine 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is somewhat tangential and inflammatory, but the article may need to address the controversy since it is generating mainstream coverage: Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Online, AP, MSNBC. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed a lengthy and POV-ridden "Pro-Life Controversy" section on the topic, and added an approrpiately concise mention in the "modern history" section. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  05:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But then again, you need to also note that while Notre Dame drew fire for inviting Obama, the speeches given by Obama and Father Jenkins were very well recieved and generated a lot of positive remarks. --10.6.10.12 14:34, 6 July 2009 (EST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.172.131 (talk)

Since nowadays most of the Democratic Party politicians who claim to be Catholic follow more their political party official stance on abortion then that from the Catholic Church, this only can be seen as sign of the political correctness and hypocrisy that dominates American political and religious mentality. The fact was that Obama simply said what people there wanted to hear on abortion, coming from a man that said previously that he wouldn't mind to see his own daughter having an abortion because he didn't wanted to see her "punished with a baby" at a young age, and also choose a fake Catholic to his running mate, as a way to insult the Catholic Church. This can only be seen as a living sign of the religious mediocrity, hypocrisy and lack of scrupulous that dominates nowadays the Catholic Church in the United States.82.154.82.27 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Land O'Lakes Statement
Perhaps there should be a stub on the famous Land O'Lakes Statement, which keeps coming back in discussions about Notre Dame and other Catholic universities. ADM (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

University Governance
ZimZalaBim- I disagree with the decision to delete the explanation of University governance. It is significant because Notre Dame is a prominent Catholic university. Some Catholic universities are run directly by different holy orders, some are run by the diocese they exist in. Some are run by independent boards of trustees. How the university is structured legally, has practical consequences. Dicoeses, and provinces of holy orders, that have been under financal pressure from child abuse lawsuits are forced to sell assets. The fact that Notre Dame is a seperate entity (not owned by the dicoese of South Bend/Fort Wayne, or the Congratation of the Holy Cross) and and is governed as such becomes a relevant point.--Mitamarine 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a separate section on governance. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is the French pronunciation ever actually used in reference to the University, as the opening sentence says? While I've heard that pronunciation used by English speakers for the cathedral in Paris and its associated hunchback, I have only ever heard the university pronounced the anglicized way,. +Angr 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"I have only ever heard the university pronounced the anglicized way,". That's not the 'anglicised' way, its the 'American' way. Duarcain (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Distinguished Alumni of Notre Dame
Alan Page of the Minnesota Supreme Court should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.91.55 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Observer
Perhaps a few sentences could be added to the "student run media" section about the recent cartoon controversy in The Observer. It was an outrageous incident and I feel it deserves a mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.163.253 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but I don't think I'd support the idea. Leaving aside the fact that the article is already quite long and begging to be split (at 98 kilobytes, "a few sentences" might not make a big difference), the question is whether the addition would help describe and explain the U of ND to a reader unfamiliar with it. The founding's history, the size of the campus, the reknown of the sports teams, etc., all belong in the article, today and next year and in five years.


 * The cartoon situation is of short-term interest only. I think in, say, October of this year, few people will find it interesting enough to be in the UND encyclopedia entry. It appears (to me, awaaay over here), that the whole thing boils down to some student cartoonist trying to be funny or daring or edgy or provocative or some combination of the above (or, who knows, maybe really trying to some aggression going), and slipped it by the Observer's editorial staff. The apology seemed sincere (the recent first edit, now reverted, notwithstanding), and the affair seems like a grave error and cause to question the continuance of that strip, but ultimately not worth a mention here.


 * Here's the text I was going to include as a rewrite of the previous edits (before another editor just reverted them entirely). The original text was ripped directly out of the glaadBlog so it needed rewriting for COPYVIO as well as POV reasons anyway. This new graph could go between the two paragraphs currently in "Student-run media" (between the newspapers and televion station).


 * On January 13, 2009, The Observer ran a controversial cartoon that appeared to promote violence against gay people. The cartoon showed a two-party exchange: "What’s the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?" "No idea." "A baseball bat." The cartoon was met with criticism from the local and national LGBT community, prompting The Observer to issue a lengthy apology.


 * Again, I don't think we need this mentioned. I'd prefer we leave it out (unless student rioters burn down O'Shaughnessy Hall to protest the incident). The article could use some pruning or splitting of material, but I don't think this item, dismaying as it is, belongs in the article. Now, if there were an article about The Observer, then I'd definitely accept its inclusion there. (Note: I am not saying we need such an article.) &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Department of Economics and Policy Studies
I don't know if it's worth mentioning Notre Dame's closure of its Department of Economics and Policy Studies (Feb 2010). Blog source here; better sources no doubt can be found. Rd232 talk 18:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New Graduate Program ESTEEM
Notre Dame has added a new Graduate program now in its first year. Should the M.S. degree in Engineering, Science, and Technology Entrepreneurship Masters be mentioned? Does this warrant a section? It is a joint degree between the colleges of science engineering and business; if it is a subsection where should it go? Wmcleod (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Faculty
Most universities have a section with a short discussion of their most notable faculty (past and present) and a link to a page with a full list. You have many notable faculty, Write them up.AMuseo (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Obama Speech
I think this part of the article deserves expansion. Obama's political party is becoming an alternative religion for most American Roman Catholics who are their members. Shouldn't the Catholic Church be worried that nowadays there are two kinds of Catholics in American politics, the real and the fake ones, and most of the Congressmen and Governors of the Democratic Party are now "God bless abortion" Catholics? In fact there is only a Roman Catholic in the Senate from the Democratic Party who is pro-life. Is this a good example for the Catholic Church worldwide? To have a single real Catholic and 18 fake Catholics in a party where until 1973, most of their Catholic members were overwhelmingly pro-life. Since there are no virtually atheists and agnostics in American politics, it makes all sense that many of these fakes are closet atheists and agnostics. At least a positive aspect in his speech is that Obama agreed that all true and honest Catholics have to be pro-life.85.240.17.190 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note as well there is no mention of the controversy over the so-called "Notre Dame 88" against whom the university filed trespassing charges for protesting the president's speech. This was until the files were dropped a major cause célèbre in Catholic circles. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

His speech, which certainly wasn´t written by him but by one of his speechwriters, simply stated the obvious, in a insultuous politically correct way to the Catholic Church and his role in the pro-life movement, to please abortion supporters whitout being problematic apparently to the pro-life Catholics and the pro-life University of Nôtre Dame.85.240.17.190 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

University of Nôtre Dame, after all his supposed to be a Catholic University. 81.193.215.68 (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent criticism?
Should there be recent criticism included in this article? For example, the death of student Declan Sullivan at practice? --Aronoel (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism not explained sufficiently
Notre Dame is less Catholic than the article makes it out to be. The Obama speech is not the only controversy they have had. 69.246.10.16 (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is not a single mention as far as I can see of the infamous Land O'Lakes Statement of 1967 that gave cover for Catholic institutions to secularize. A pivotal point in Catholic higher education in the US is totally ignored. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. They are much less strict then the Catholic University of America. From Wikipedia article about The Catholic University of America: "In a letter to the campus that next month, CUA President David O'Connell wrote: I consider any pro-choice advocacy — whether deliberate or accidental, whether presented under the guise of academic freedom or right to free speech — as incompatible with that fidelity and not worthy of The Catholic University of America.[30]" This has happened several times in the University of Nôtre Dame.81.193.215.68 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in his 2004 pronouncement stated that Catholic institutions should not give "awards, honors, or platforms" to "those who act in defiance of [Catholic] fundamental moral principles." Obama also supports death penalty and doesn't want to change anything in the way it is applied in the United States.85.240.20.39 (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Football
The claim of 13 National Championships in football is patently ludicrous. ND has won 7 NCAA championships in football. The AP has only awarded National Titles in football since 1936. The "other" titles were awarded way after the fact by computers. Also a doublestandard exists in this regard...why is it that every "title" ND has been awarded, legitimate and phony computer title, is counted towards the total, whereas with other teams (Oklahoma and Southern California for example) only the AP/UPI titles are counted? I submit that the number be reduced to the ACTUAL number of NCAA titles ND has won...7. The alternative is to update the numbers for other teams that only have the AP/UPI counted. --TobusRex (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello TR - This is a major can of worms across the whole sports world - NCs in general, not ND specifically. Your basic premise, though, isn't correct. Alabama, for example, claims 13 NCs and USC 10 (had been 11 before vacating the 2004 debacle). For SC, look at the Wiki here USC Claimed Titles and SC Athletic Department Page. I have never seen a university athletics page of the scores I have researched that restrict their NC claims to AP, which started in the 1930s. The topic is well-covered in the Wikipedia article about it hereCollege_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Colors
There is a problem with the sourcing for the university's colors, listed in the infobox as "Madonna blue and papal gold." The reference supporting this, however, is to the university's "visual identity" handbook, essentially a style sheet for publications and media. Visual ID .pdf That document states "The official colors of the visual identity are Madonna blue and papal gold" - not those of the school itself. The athletic department correctly identifies and explains that the sports teams wear gold and blue, and in that order - UND Athletics. Now, the heraldry of the coat of arms of the university indeed features Madonna blue and papal gold - those are the colors depicted here. However - the SEAL of the university, included in the infobox, - University Seal||right|150 px|thumb - is the standard gold and blue, neither papal nor Madonna. The visual identity is not representative of the actual colors - the "Madonna blue" has never been worn as athletic colors, nor featured on pennants, nor on diplomas, nor anywhere else I can find or recall except for post-2009 publications. The sports monogram itself - - is the traditional blue, far closer to navy than Madonna. This error needs to be changed, which I will do when I get a second source in addition to the athletics dept page cited above. Sensei48 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * With sourcing from an article on the Grotto from ND's website, changing today as above. Sensei48 (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Notre Dame schedules deletion discussion
Editors of this page may want to take a look at this discussion and weigh in. Other relevant discussions are Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules and Articles for deletion/BYU Cougars future football schedules. Wrad (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion has expanded to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football. Please help the community figure out what to do with material on future seasons. Wrad (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama, abortion, and destroying human embryos
I have modified the text that deals with Obama's honorary degree.

I modified the first sentence to "In 2009, the University was criticized by many Catholic bishops for conferring an honorary degree on President Barack Obama." Just made the text smaller. I assume it is not controversial.

In the second sentence I made two significant changes. First, I changed "support" to "promotion", because Obama not only voices his approval for abortion and the destruction of human embryos, but he actually intends to pass FOCA to promote the former, and he uses citizen's money to finance the latter.

Also, I changed "embryonic stem cell research" to "types of embryonic stem cell research that destroy human embryos" because we have no source to say that the Church oppose all esc research. We do have sources that she opposes esc research that destroys human embryos, and we know that Obama promotes those types of research. -- Jorge (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Jorge: I rv'd your earlier edit because I thought it too unspecific and in a way limited. Though the source does not cover this point, the Catholic Church also opposes the creation of embryos for research purposes, not only their destruction. As it is, I think another more comprehensive source is needed and a slight further change of wording, but this is NPOV enough for now.regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so polite. And I will try to find other sources to satisfy you. Reagards -- Jorge (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I read a second Catholic magisterial document. Both documents I read avoid condemning embryonic stem cell research altogether. They both dive in the details and only condemn specific practices such as intentionally destroying live human embryos or cloning humans. The mass media sometimes refers to this as "opposition to embryonic stem cell research", but the mass media has never been accused of paying attention to detail.
 * And I imagine you can accept the new language I proposed ("result in the destruction of") as it sounds less agressive. Regards -- Jorge (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Jorge - and my compliments on your courtesy as well. Language and sources are from my point of view fine, but I just thought that further clarification might help readers to make the distinction that you do above. If I can find a source (in addition to "cloning" covered in the listed document - that involves creating embryos), how would you feel about adding a phrase like "laboratory creation and consequent destruction of human embryos"? regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that language is fine. But I would say "laboratory creation or destruction of human embryos", because I think that is more accurate. -- Jorge (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sexual assault charges?
Why on earth is this a topic on the main Notre Dame page? It is not a noteworthy enough event in notre dame's history to put here. For example, the arrest of four alabama freshmen for assaulting a student the other day (which actually happened) shouldn't be on their main page either. Please to remove. Riceman0 (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. It is really an anti-ND-football screed. (note that the alleged perpetrator is identified not by major or class or race, but by membership on a sports team, which reveals the POV goal). Rjensen (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish this had been raised here before reversion, and further that a prior extensive discussion on the issue had been conducted here rather than on my Talk page by the editor who introduced the material. If you look at our discussion here [], you'll see that some of the debate centers around sourcing, which has clearly been improved by cites from the university itself and the U.S. Dept of Education. Further, I had intended to return to this section and rewrite it with proper emphasis on the actual and very significant facts in the case: that the country's most prominent, highest profile Catholic university's athletic department and the school itself had been investigated by the Dept of Education, Office of Civil Rights for its handling of sexual harassment cases. The last three cites in the reverted section are from impeccable sources - The Chronicle of Higher Education, an official ND press release, and the official announcement from the Dep of Ed/Civil Rights. This is in no way an insignificant matter. The problem with the reverted edit is that it reads like an anti-football screed, as Rjensen terms it. A rewrite can present the facts without leading with the lurid. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * yes it did happen. the issue is whether it is "an insignificant matter"; I think it is. and the reason is gets any media attention is because ND is such a high profile Catholic football school and that makes newspaper copy and has for 100 years since Rockne. example; one football player's nonexistent girlfriend recently got super-bowl style coverage. Rjensen (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Per Notability, the incidents in question satisfy all of the criteria. Please explain why you think it is not notable. Transcendence (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources reported that the Department of Education opened an investigation into how the university handles sexual assault cases. That seems notable to me and much more than just "an off campus incident with a non-UD person." It also undermines the argument that it "led to no legal action;" an Office of Civil Rights investigation is not a court case but it certainly seems to meet a broader definition of "legal action." ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dept of Education agreement with ND is notable but the allegation that a ND student once touched the breasts of a women who was visiting his room is not notable in an article that covers all aspects of ND. Put it in the girl's bio. As for the male it violates his BLP rights on Wikipedia.  there were never any charges or lawsuits against the male involved. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of "ND student once touched the breasts of a women who was visiting his room" in the latest version of the article before it was removed so I don't see what that has to do with anything. As for the male, he isn't even identified in the media, or in the article. Per Biographies of living persons, there is no violation of his rights as his privacy is completely maintained, there is no personal information stated here or even any identifying information. Transcendence (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WRT to notability, please address my example: why is this notable and the on-campus assault by four Alabama players last week not notable enough for the university of alabama's main page? Legal actions with actual findings ensued there. And I'm not here to debate what is sexual assault and is not, but give me a break... "ND student touched her breasts" is from the *accuser.* Nobody debates that was the extent of it. The fact it was picked up by national media and repeated so often as "sexual assault by ND football player + coverup" by the media is not at accurate, not fair to anybody (it is in fact exploitative of the girl) and not NPOV -- but they're not TRYING to be NPOV, they're trying to get pageviews. People love to hate notre dame. If you need another wiki page on that topic to reference from this, I'll write it.Riceman0 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is already addressed twice by other people here. The notability is that the federal government had to get involved and investigate and come to a legal agreement with the University. In your example, the incident doesn't involve the University, it just happened to involve students from the University. Also, I reiterate, there is no mention of "ND student touched her breasts" in the material you removed. I do not understand how that is relevant here. Transcendence (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * leave the sexual assault charges out....it's the problem. The alleged episode had no witnesses and no evidence except the allegations of a mentally ill women. The allegations have been used heavily  to attack the football team. BLP rules insist that if a person is living then unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behavior are off limits.  anyone who reads the article can google and end his privacy. the text did not mention the women had severe mental issues (that's POV editing) and that the issue has been widely used to attack ND (which is a POV reason it's included). The BLP policy says: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Initially I included the information about Seeburg to provide context for the following paragraph, but I agree that the article is better served by leaving it out. With that in mind, is there any objection to restoring the 2nd paragraph which is purely about the D.O.E investigation?Transcendence (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs on notre dame's main page. I don't think the investigation itself is noteworthy.  It resulted from the alleged sexual assault in question and only resulted in "minor modifications" to the process.  I googled "department of education investigation university" and the notre dame investigation wasn't even on the first page, bumped by yale, u of phoenix, and penn state.  I mean, I don't think http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-resolution-yale-university-civil-rights-invest belongs on Yale's front page, do you?Riceman0 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the citations, you'll see that the investigations happened because of numerous allegations, not just the Seeberg one. As to your question of whether or not the other ones belong on the other University main pages, I think it could. I don't know the details of the other investigations, but if its similar then yes. As you can see from the other comments here, two other editors agree. Furthermore, as I pointed out already, this does satisfy the criteria for notability. Per Notability, this has "significant coverage", "reliable" "sources", is "independent of the subject", and the last criteria pertains to creation of articles, so it isn't relevant to this discussion. I've shown why this notable. The burden is on you to show why this isn't since you are the one who removed the content. Transcendence (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just took the time to go back and read [210], [211], [212] -- I don't see any mention of the allegation at all, much less "numerous".  Please clarify?   I also went back and read the paragraph you proposed (which is not what I deleted).  That's fine, not a "screed," but it ought to include the result: "minor" modifications, and overall that "the seven-month review found that Notre Dame has 'implemented and commits to maintaining' a high set of standards related to combatting sexual harassment."  This was jointly signed by ND and DOE.  You won't even have to add a citation, that's from [211].  (Although I'd still question that an investigation with such a result is notable, I wouldn't object.)   66.170.97.242 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture Captions
I note that a number of photos in the article are captioned with the phrase in quotations "God Quad." Wherever this phrase originated (and whenever - it certainly wasn't in use when I was a student in the late 60s and early 70s), its tongue-in-cheek informality is entirely inappropriate to a serious encyclopedia article. The correct designation (for the last nearly 100 years) for the quad headed by the golden-domed Admin Building and Sacred Heart Basilica has been Main Quad, to distinguish it from the South Quad (the second chronologically) and what is now known as the North Quad (still called by its original name of Freshman Quad when I started there). I can't and wouldn't change the designations of the Commons photos of the original uploader, but in the interests of the dignity and formality of a real encyclopedia article, I'm changing the captions here to "Main Quad."Sensei48 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because the name acknowledged by the University for the center quad is "God" Quad. Please bring evidence to show your edit was correct.66.254.250.82 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the onus is on you. "Acknowledged by the University"? Hardly. Here are two official press releases recently referring to it as the Main Quad:    Further, and again from the University itself, an acknowledgement that "God Quad" is slang - . Please find an official document or release by the University that endorses this flippant nickname as anything like an official designation.Sensei48 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are a series of news releases which refer to the area is question as God Quad. ,, and. Here is a version of the vocab handbook which is distributed to all freshmen during Freshmen Orientation (prepared by Student Government and distributed by dorms):. Finally, here is a mention of God Quad in the title of a book published by Corby Press:. Burden of proof falls back to you now.66.254.240.3 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not so. Only #2 is an actual press release of the sort that I provided. #1 is a personal essay in the alumni Mag, in no way official. #3 puts the term in quotations, clearly indicating that that is not the official designation at all but rather a nickname. The "vocab handbook" is the same kind of page I cited from Keenan - a list of informal terms, indicated by the page title itself - Morrissey Hall is the official name; "manor" is a  nickname indicated by the official tour here:  The book title is like #1 a personal statement, not an official press release of the university. Even #2 is from a campus committee, not from the admin per se. What these indicate in aggregate is that the term has current usage, not that it is in any way an official designation. None of your citations constitutes an official endorsement by the university of what is self-evidently a nickname. The two press releases I cited are official ones from the central press office of the university, and the Keenan page clearly indicates that the term is slang.Sensei48 (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If we are going to go with the most official Notre Dame documents, here is the 2008 update of the Campus Plan from the University Architect. The plan refers to all the "quads" by their official title "the ___ Quadrangle".   Should we then reflect this usage on the Wikipedia page?  I also disagree with your ranking of ND Newswire events higher than releases from a university department.  To bear more weight on the use of God Quad, here is a mention of God Quad from the Office of University Communications.    Here's a listing of buildings, from the Office of Housing, according to quad, with God Quad listed .  This citation from the Office of Public Affairs indicates that "Quad" is to be capitalized when it is refers to a specific quad.  The example listed uses "God Quad" (without quotes) as the name of the specific quad.    Here is a mention of "God Quad" (again without the quotes) in a publication from the registrar's office.    Here's another from the Newswire .  Will a newsletter from the ROTC program suffice?    Not as recent, but more "official" .  Here's a newsletter from the Art Department that suggests that the name was changed to God Quad .  What about approved minutes from a student senate meeting?   Here's a mention of God Quad from a non-ND source .  Here's a mention of God Quad in a published journal .  This is what I bring forward to show that the quad is referred to (and given official recognition as) God Quad.66.254.231.177 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Commendations for your extensive research, but (in addition to the fact that some of these documents are extremely long and you don't indicate where in them the term is to be found), we still have at best a draw, and I'll show you where. The "most official" of the documents you cited is the first, the Master Plan from 2008. I've worked with Buildings and Grounds in the schools in which I have taught, and the Master Plan is the only legal document of the ones presented here - it must be submitted to the county (or city, as the case may be) for approval and is legally binding. Without having gone through the whole thing, take a look at page 7 under "Planning Guidelines," - paragraph 2 - "The Main Quad, North Quad, Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, DeBartolo Quad, Sesquicentennial Commons, and the edges of the two lakes will be continually replanted with trees..."  Further, on the official master plan map om page 11, note again - "Main Quad." Again, detail of the same map, page 17 - Main Quad. Page 20: - "the center of Gravity - the Main Quadrangle." Now, your list includes significant mentions that underscore what I say above - that the term "God Quad" has current usage, extending into university publications. But multiple references to Main Quad in the Master Plan and that designation on the maps is a clear indication that no formal name change has occurred.


 * I have a compromise to suggest, but it is very late here and I'll return to it tomorrow. Thanks for your research and your patience in not re-reverting. I think we can work out something mutually acceptable. regards,Sensei48 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Perfect. I can't wait to see what we can do.  66.254.242.148 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi 66 - so sorry for the 2 week delay, and thanks for the patience. How about we include both terms in the caption? Here are two possible ways:


 * "from the God Quad, formally known as the Main Quadrangle."


 * "from the Main Quadrangle, popularly termed the God Quad."


 * I don't think either is too unwieldy for a caption, and both are accurate. Let me know what you think. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Great to hear back from you! I like the second choice, with a minor edit.  I think we should drop the "the" before God Quad.  It sounds clunky for some reason.  Thoughts?  Other than this, I think we are good.  I'm fine with it if you want to make the change!  66.254.237.159 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad that we have some common ground. I like your suggestion to drop "the." I'll try to get to it later tonight, but if you get the chance to re-edit I would be just as pleased. I like the second one too but would be happy with either. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Slipped my mind but done now as I understood the comments above. Sensei48 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It looks good! 66.254.250.191 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on University of Notre Dame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101015724/http://newsinfo.nd.edu:80/content.cfm?topicid=34 to http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=34
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140823171922/https://secure.alumni.nd.edu/site/c.luIZLdMOJpE/b.2660503/ to https://secure.alumni.nd.edu/site/c.luIZLdMOJpE/b.2660503/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071118082801/http://newsinfo.nd.edu:80/content.cfm?topicId=21104 to http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=21104
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060912192811/http://www.nd.edu/%7Eengineer/current/degrees.html to http://www.nd.edu/~engineer/current/degrees.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116031739/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060209.wkids0209/EmailBNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060209.wkids0209/EmailBNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071212163810/http://www.princetonreview.com:80/college/research/profiles/schoolsays.asp?category=1&listing=1022674&LTID=1&intbucketid= to http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/schoolsays.asp?category=1&listing=1022674&LTID=1&intbucketid=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090110161959/http://newsinfo.nd.edu:80/content.cfm?topicid=20002 to http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=20002
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071118210440/http://www.heisman.com:80/winners/hsmn-winners.html to http://www.heisman.com/winners/hsmn-winners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140823172027/http://www.nd.edu/~ndband/history.html to http://www.nd.edu/~ndband/history.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Large or medium?
Two editors have recently edited this article to say that this university is medium. The first edit didn't cite a source and the second edit cites this source written but a college sophomore. This contradicts the information previously in the article that stated the university is large as described by the Size/setting classification of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. It's laughable that editors are substituting either their own opinion or that of an undergraduate student for the most well-known and widely used classification system in the U.S. created, maintained, and used by higher education scholars. ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * From Carnegie:
 * M4/HR: Medium four-year, highly residential
 * Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 3,000–9,999 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. At least half of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus** and at least 80 percent attend full time.
 * L4/HR: Large four-year, highly residential
 * Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. At least half of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus** and at least 80 percent attend full time.
 * As you will notice, it says "degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions", so undergraduates. And Notre Dame has 12k students, but only 8k undergraduates, so it make sense to classify it as medium.Eccekevin (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding something. You don't have to try to apply the definitions; it's already been done by experts far more knowledgeable that you.  Go back and look at the classification; it's already classified as a large institution.  ElKevbo (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that webpage, I linked it in the first place. Not my fault if they misused their own criterion. The point is that it is misleading. Carnegie has its own classifications for the experts in the field and they work, but Wikipedia is made also for the general public. And when the average student body at most Universities is well above 10-15k, an institution that has less than 12k being called "large" is indeed misleading. I won't push this, I really don't care if it is reverted to "large". I'm just pointing out that it would be misleading and it would go against the primary goal of a Lead to give the general public an overview of an institution. Eccekevin (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First, you better bring evidence if you want to assert that this institution is misclassified; your own assumptions aren't enough. Second, the "average student body at most Universities" is not "well above 10-15k."  If we only look at 4-year (Title IV) institutions that aren't classified as special purpose, only about 15% fall into the Carnegie definition of "large."  The majority - 60% - are very small or small.
 * But all of that doesn't matter. What matters is what you can demonstrate using reliable sources.  So far we have two.  The first is the preeminent classification system of higher education institutions in the U.S.  The second is a webpage written by a college sophomore.  Right now, the weight of evidence doesn't support your argument. ElKevbo (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted to "large" to match Carnegie Classification. Thank you for pointing it out, ElKevbo. But let me also refer you to WP:CIV and WP:ETIQ. Cheers!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on University of Notre Dame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090622125416/http://green.nd.edu:80/office to http://green.nd.edu/office
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090727154402/http://green.nd.edu:80/programs-and-initiatives/socialother to http://green.nd.edu/programs-and-initiatives/socialother

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on University of Notre Dame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090606231859/http://green.nd.edu:80/programs-and-initiatives/designbuilding to http://green.nd.edu/programs-and-initiatives/designbuilding

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on University of Notre Dame. 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/20090413193236/http://www.ala.org:80/ala/aboutala/offices/library/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet22.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/library/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet22.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050921120450/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/14/earlyshow/bios/main525455.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/14/earlyshow/bios/main525455.shtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on University of Notre Dame. 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/20121014033744/http://www.theacc.com/genrel/091212aaa.html to http://www.theacc.com/genrel/091212aaa.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Notre Dame rose to national prominence ... fight song." in the introduction is repeated twice. Someone with access kindly rectify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidjos (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated ""Notre Dame rose to national prominence in the early 1900s for its Fighting Irish football team..." paragraph in introduction
Repeated ""Notre Dame rose to national prominence in the early 1900s for its Fighting Irish football team..." paragraph in introduction. Someone with access kindly remove one copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidjos (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the catch!Eccekevin (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Seal For The InfoBox
There have been discussions and reversions going on regarding the proper seal to use with which to illustrate the infobox. Currently, the Latin seal appears in the infobox, and two links are provided as sourcing. The first is to a .pdf dated to 2011 that presents the 1931 Latin seal. The second links to the university's OnMessage page, the text of which reads -

"The Latin seal has very limited application, primarily for official University use, such as contracts, certain stationery, podiums, invitations, and academic diplomas.

The English seal has a wider usage and may be used—with authorization—as a design element on certain ceremonial communications, such as invitations as well as merchandise items."



This suggests that really either seal would be acceptable here, and given the fact that Wikipedia is not "contracts, certain stationery, podiums, invitations, and academic diplomas," the English seal might be a better choice. However, I believe that the point should be discussed here and at more length than edit summaries afford. Sensei48 (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We usually go with the formal seal, which in this case is the Latin seal. I'd favor in keeping the Latin seal. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 03:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Location
Following a discussion here the article has for a long time (correctly) indicated that the location of the University is "adjacent" to South Bend, Indiana in the lede and "Notre Dame, IN" in other places, such as the infobox. changed this in the infobox, but not in the lede. When I reverted it, pointing to the earlier discussion User:2602:302:D1A2:C740:A8F8:C46F:F206:6F09 re-reverted , saying that it was a content dispute and that a new discussion was needed. User:2602:302:D1A2:C740:A8F8:C46F:F206:6F09 did not, however, begin that discussion and has instead, despite saying there is a content dispute, been making unilateral changes to other Notre Dame related articles when the location of something is listed as Notre Dame, IN, including Matthew J. Walsh,Charles L. O'Donnell, Hugh O'Donnell (priest),John J. Cavanaugh , Theodore Hesburgh, Andrew Morrissey, William Corby, Patrick Dillon, and Edward Sorin. Unhelpfully, there are no edit summaries for these edits. --Jahaza (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the change was also made, reverted and re-reverted on the DAB Notre Dame.-Jahaza (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've notified a number of related wiki-projects (Universities, Notre Dame, Indiana).--Jahaza (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see no need to rehash this. There is no new information. Instead, the IP needs to be templated and eventually blocked. This is just disruptive editing, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT on their part. This should happen sooner not later, and if they hop IP'S, page protection should be used. This is behavioral, not content. John from Idegon (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP is a static IP from Reno, Nevada. Outside of ND related subjects their only other edit is to University of Nevada, Reno. No references for anything. However, the info he's changing in the ND-related biographies is place of death and there is no discussion or sources for that in the affected articles. Since the hospital IS in South Bend, he very well may be correct. The edits to this article and the DAB page however are definitely problematic. John from Idegon (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The hospital was likely not the place of death of all the priests whos page he changed. For example, Fr hesburgh died at the Holy Cross House, whose postal address is in Notre Dame, IN ([]). It is likely that most members of the Notre Dame religious community died in one of the many holdings, all in Notre Dame, IN.
 * That may very well be true, but there are no sources to that. Just saying....without a source, his changes are no more or less incorrect than the existing copy. My point is, any discussion of the other articles belongs on their talk pages. Since the IP hasn't come forward to give their position, in a day or so this discussion should be closed and consensus deferred to the archived discussion. This is a pointless timesink. John from Idegon (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I RV'd the SB edit here and on the Hesburgh page. In my Hesburgh edit summary, I alluded to the source of the on-campus death cited in the article, from the WaPo obit here - . In my RV here, I simply referred to the multiple RS including the university's own website that list Notre Dame, Indiana as the locale; my edit summary pointed out that ND has since 1842 never been part of incorporated South Bend. A cursory examination of the articles' histories could have avoided time waste and false equivalency. Sensei48 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)