Talk:University of Notre Dame/Archive 5

The Seal
The University has an official Latin seal. On diplomas it is black and white, but throughout campus it is colored. I attached here a picture to prove the point. In four years, in many instances of the seal, I have never come across the seal that was not colored. The black and white seal is used for the diplomas and documents, and it is black and white because it is designed to be stamped or printed in black and white as an official mark for bureaucracy. Yet, when it is used as a symbol of the university, it is always colored. not that the in Latin seal, the background makes use of Etching to indicate color. This is common in seals, since they are made to be stamped (and a stamp doesn't have color) but are meant to convey color. In a similar way, the Great Seal of the United States is a seal, hence it is only a line made to make a stamp []. But when it is represented graphically, it is colored, as seen in the infobox for the page of Great Seal of the United States.

In the same way, the university's official seal is a stamp,. but when its used in other media it is colored.

More pictures of the colored seal in its applications all throughout university business. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Eccekevin (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Universities have been known to "update" their seals. Links "9" and "11" have nothing to do with the seal, and a majority of the others already go against Eccekevin's version as they use the lines in the seal, just like the one on the University branding website. Not to mention, some of those links above are 6+ years old and therefore outdated. Eccekevin, by his constant reverting, shows that he is trying to own the article, which is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Sometimes, people need to learn to compromise as they're lucky I used the colors in the seal, even though the University website says not to. The only option is to email the University Public Affairs and Communications office and see if they can help settle this. However, there is no real way to prove it unless we send the email to the OTRS team which can then verify it. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 01:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have provided extensive information in support of the fact that the seal has colors (while the one without colors is used on paper documents). Until there is a general consensus (not only you), you should leave it as it stood. Here is an example of the seal on campus. As you can see, it is colored with gold and blue, the colors of the university. https://notredame.photoshelter.com/image?&_bqG=0&_bqH=eJzLjchNdzZOKjcLyDEzTAsJDguPSjZOsSy2jHe0MjO2MjK1MjQAAivPeJdg53hHPxfbEjUw27Y4NTFHG8gODXYNivd0sQ0FqUvPKPFLM00xjCgzUIt3dA4BqSpKzgAAHEwesg--&GI_ID= Additionally, the University's Coat of arms is colored, with a golden cross, a blue field, and a white book and a white star: https://www3.nd.edu/~wcawley/corson/schoolcolors.htm. This coat of arms is what is represented in the seal. So color all over. The only instance of the black and white seal is on paper at commencement. Eccekevin (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not going to replace every seal in the floor when they've updated it – things cost money and seals in the floors aren't cheap. You are showing ownership of this article, as well as other ND-related articles. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 23:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

When was the seal ever updated? This has not happened. Also, as an example: this is the black and white seal of Yale, but it is not what is used on the wiki page, which is this , because the color seal is more used on campuses and is more identifiable. The black and white is used only on official paper documents. Eccekevin (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't about the black and white like you're claiming. It's the ACTUAL image we're talking about. The university USES the lines in the shield, like the one I keep adding, but yet you're so clearly stuck on the old version and not wanting anyone to UPDATE your precious school that you can't see the changes they've made. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 00:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Religious affiliation in infobox
In the infobox, the affiliation is listed as 'Roman Catholic Church'. Why should the page have Roman Catholic Church in the infobox when it is a redirect to Catholic Church? Why not eliminate the redirect an insert the link to the WP of the Catholic church?Eccekevin (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of logo, after infobox
Greetings, Today I added back this image, File:Notre Dame Fighting Irish logo.svg. If it does need to be deleted, please explain why? Since it is part of UND why should it not be included to improve the article? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It belongs in the athletics section since it associates with that department more than the actual university. I don't see it as 'unnecessary' and no valid reason for it to be removed. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest  14:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it belongs at all then it belongs in the Athletics section of this article. This article is about the entire university, not just the sports teams. ElKevbo (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree & thanks for the insights. It's nice when an article can be improved like this. Cheers! :-)

In popular culture section
I challenge in the inclusion of the following items in the "In popular culture" section:


 * In Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005), Brad Pitt's character Mr. Smith majored in art history at Notre Dame.
 * In the film Something Borrowed, Ginnifer Goodwin's character is not accepted into Notre Dame Law School, which is depicted as a crushing event because her competitive best friend (Kate Hudson) manages to get in.
 * Lt. Walter J. "Touchdown" Schinoski, claims to have played football at Notre Dame in Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket.
 * Regis Philbin, Guinness world record for most hours on camera, often spoke about his Alma Mater on screen.
 * Notre Dame was featured several times on The Simpsons. In the episode "Sunday, Cruddy Sunday" the character Rudy wearing his ND jacket makes an appearance. On the episode "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Guest Star" Homer and Bart go to Catholic Heaven, where there is a group of Irish, among whom a man wearing a ND sweatshirt.
 * In the drama Friday Night Lights, Jason Street is ranked as one of the top high school quarterbacks in the nation with a scholarship offer to the University of Notre Dame, but during the first game of the season he suffers a severe spinal cord injury.
 * Paul Lassiter, Press secretary on Spin City, is also a fictional graduate.
 * Edward Montgomery, Greg's father on Dharma and Greg, is an alumnus of Notre Dame.
 * William Walden, Vice President on Homeland, is an alumnus.


 * Li'l Sebastian, a miniature horse on Parks and Recreation, holds an honorary from Notre Dame degree.

Not only are most of these items unsourced but they're all Wikipedia editor-selected items. Unless there are sources that explicitly discuss not only the connection between these items and this university but also the importance of that connection, these connections are trivial and don't belong in an encyclopedia article. If a Wikipedia editor wants to collect all of these mentions into a journal or popular press article that discusses the influence of Notre Dame on popular culture then he or she is welcome to do so; this isn't the place to publish such material. ElKevbo (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This section is way less trivial than many others, as for an example:


 * All of these contain similar references as the one on the page, if not even more trivial.Eccekevin (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about those articles, we're talking about this one. This material is mostly unsourced and entirely original research.  You're insisting it remain in this article.  Why? ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I see two issues: a) are these episodes important in terms of ND image? (I would say 'no' these particular ones are not--each one seems very short and not revealing of ND.  A show that gives 5 seconds  seconds to a wordless picture of a golden dome in the background is not weighty.  At most they suggest an alum is Catholic but that is not itself important unless integrated into the plot line.). b) issue 2 is do Wiki editors have the duty to make the decision? Yes, that is the responsibility of editors--after all there are tens of thousands of pages of published RS on ND, its teams, its presidents, its campus, (and its alum--I am one myself) --therefore wiki editors have to make the selection.  Appearance on a well-known TV show is an acceptable primary source--these statements of simple, non-controversial facts are allowed by Wiki rules if they do not try for an interpretation.  It is NOT true that wiki rules require a third source.  The TV show itself is the required source, just like a novel can be the source for a reference to ND.  Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course a television show or novel is a reliable source for the explicit, obvious things that occur in that medium e.g., a character is clearly identified as a Notre Dame alumnus. What that document is not a reliable source for is whether that connection is important.  I am uncomfortable, and I think our policies support this, with Wikipedia editors independently making that decision without there being any sources whatsoever that actually make the point that the ND connection is important and meaningful.  In most cases, I believe that editors are making an attempt to draw up a list that supports their own implicit argument about the importance of the subject to popular culture.  I don't think that most editors who do that are nefarious or really attempting to push a problematic POV (although many are obviously trying to promote their alma mater or employer) but it's still WP:OR.
 * If there is neither a reliable source that makes this argument (e.g., there are several sources - I just grabbed one from USA Today - that make a strong connection between the fictional president of the West Wing television show and his relationship to Notre Dame, a relationship that the actor insisted be present as it relates to the Catholicism of both the character and the actor) nor is there widespread agreement that the connection is obvious and powerful (e.g., of course Rudy belongs in this section!) then it becomes a problem. Put simply, it's not enough that a reliable source be provided that the connection is true; there should be good sourcing that the connection is meaningful.  A trite list of randomly selected examples picked out Wikipedia editors doesn't serve readers well as it doesn't inform them of anything but the whims and prejudices of the editors who happened to like or stumble across those examples.
 * Outside of list articles, drawing up lists of examples to support a point (e.g., "this university has played an important role in popular culture throughout the 20th and 21st century") is the job of scholars, not Wikipedia editors. ElKevbo (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (to take tv shows as an example) -- screenwriters have 3000 universities you can be an alumnus of. To select ND and have it play a meaningful role in the plot (more than a few seconds) is a decision be popular culture makers that ND is an important symbol. Pointing to examples in the media is a valuable resource for users -- people like me who never saw the shows being referenced.  Back to my main point: in all historical articles like this one, it's Wiki editors who decide if a verified fact is meaningful and belongs here.  That's our role--we cannot keep info out until some some mysterious outside arbiter publishes a statement regarding ND's role in the episode of the tv show in question.   ElKevbo seems hostile to editors who he suspects have a hidden motive for covering ND: his words are "whims and prejudices."   That sounds like a whim or prejudice on his part. In my opinion we have to trust fellow editors if we want teamwork to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a fundamentally different understanding of how this encyclopedia operates; I urge you to review WP:OR as you seem to be advocating that this is a platform for original research. In particular, we do not simply "trust fellow editors;" we trust reliable sources.  If you want to assert that something is critical to readers' understanding of this topic, the onus is on you to provide reliable sources that make that explicit.  Merely selecting your own handpicked examples using a criteria that you've decided on your own is not only unacceptable it's amateurish and unsustainable in a project of this scale.  Put simply, if you want to draw up a list of characters and plots from television, movies, and novels to argue about the importance of Notre Dame in U.S. popular culture then you need to make that argument somewhere else and then come back here to convince another editor to cite that publication in this article.  This is not the place for anyone to make that argument de novo using handpicked examples.  If you're finding yourself making an argument de novo without any supporting sources then it's probably information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the OR rule states that material needs a reliable source. Wiki rules say that a fictional publication (film script, TV show, novel, etc) is a primary source and a reliable source for simple statements about the content of that publication. Everyone understands that statements in a novel are not reliable sources for the real world. As for "trusting reliable sources" -- well no. If a Wiki editor thinks the RS is misleading or wrong they in fact do not "trust" it and they do not use it. However mistaken statements are not the issue here. As for "handpicked examples" -- well that covers 99% of the history articles at Wikipedia--how else did each paragraph get here except an editor hand picked a small part of a book (or other RS) and left out the rest. The hand did not pick at random--it selected material the editor thinks will be helpful to the article and is trustworthy. That decision is evaluated by other editors--this is the secret sauce that makes Wikipedia so successful: errors in major articles are spotted right away because lots of people are watching for errors.  Rjensen (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have access to academic databases from Notre Dame? You can look for an article (from an academic journal, newspaper, or magazine) talking about Notre Dame's effect on popular culture. You can use it to help build a section on the effect on popular culture. I'm sure such an article exists. If you need help, contact the university librarian. Remember to mark opinions as such and attribute them to their author I'm personally torn in some of these cases. Obviously making unsubstantiated lists is fancrufty and they can be interpreted Original Research if Synthesis (advancing a position not supported by the original sources) is used in a statement not explicitly stated by any of the sources; for example to say "Notre Dame had a major effect on popular culture" you need an article that actually says that and to attribute that statement to its author; you can't just cite 50 primary sources on individual instances ad conclude it from oneself. I also understand why people make such lists, and many Wikipedia editors would be uninterested if they couldn't edit in what their area of interest is. If they aren't hand-held in being shown how to make appropriate edits (here's how to make a section on popular culture), they may decide editing Wikipedia is too hard and leave; that could starve Wikipedia of young people who could become powerful editors later. This is why I'm torn... WhisperToMe (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems like an incredibly arbitrary argument. Does it harm the page itself to have this popular culture section on it? It's not an argument as to whether Notre Dame has an impact on popular culture as that really doesn't need to be argued - it does, end of story, no academic citation necessary. This section's purpose isn't to explain that though, it's to provide examples of Notre Dame being referenced IN pop culture. If the issue that these seem to be "handpicked" by editors then let's make the list more robust. If the argument is that these connections are trivial, then it can also be argued that all of pop culture is trivial. It doesn't mean that they aren't references to the university in high-grossing, well-watched movies and tv shows.Eaharter (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but WP:RS and WP:V are policies whether you like them or not. ElKevbo (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I like them--the policies are not at issue. The reality is that Wiki editors always small bits of info from verified reliable sources. The selection process is what ElKevbo seems to complain about. he thinks it MIGHT be biased sometimes.  Yes and we have rules about handling that -- we do not delete we ADD opposing viewpoints (if they pass  the usual RS & V tests and are not fringe.) Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's generous to speak of "selection criteria" in many cases where these sections in articles are just Wikipedia editor scrapbooks for whatever remotely related information they stumble across and want to add to the article. That is one of the most important reasons why we rely on secondary (and tertiary) sources as much as possible and insist on reliable sources that are explicit in discussing the information in question.  It's simply not sufficient that something has a connection to this university; we need someone who has explicitly discussed that connection.  Allowing Wikipedia editors to select primary sources and make their own arguments about the meaning and connection is a recipe for disaster.  We wouldn't allow it in other circumstances so I don't know why we allow it in this one.  Without those kinds of sources the "viewpoint" is (a) that of the Wikipedia editor and (b) not even fringe but non-existent.
 * To be clear, this particular article isn't horrible. There are many that are much, much worse.  At least this article has some sources that very explicitly address the university's role and portrayal in popular culture; most articles lack even that. ElKevbo (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a RS that clearly states role of ND & popular culture: By combining religion, ethnicity, masculinity, and athletics into a potent mixture of an aggressive and uniquely Catholic gospel of athletics, Notre Dame football became the emblematic program that represented American Catholic self-identity... ex "The Routledge Companion to Religion and Popular Culture" Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Use of the university seal
The University of Notre Dame apparently uses two different seals (as shown above). Current university publications linked here use Seal 2 as far back as August 2003, and the website as far back as October 2011.

Seal 1 photos:
 * 1) May 2011 commencement
 * 2) May 2014 commencement
 * 3) May 2013 commencement
 * 4) 2013 chapel window
 * 5) April 2013 photo
 * 6) built 2016
 * 7) built 2014
 * 8) 2016 Commencement
 * 9) Law school
 * 10) 2017 celebration, same seal as seal 1
 * 11) 2017 ACE commencement

Seal 2 photos
 * 1) May 2013 commencement
 * 2) January 2014 photo
 * 3) August 2016 stained glass window
 * 4) South entrance gate
 * 5) Sept. 9, 2017 university article
 * 6) Harper Cancer Research Institute plaque
 * 7) Seal on Stone
 * 8) Seal in Stone at main entrance (better view)
 * 9) Seal engraved
 * 10) Morris Inn blanket on bed
 * 11) IU Medicine plaque
 * 12) Bronze plaque

Differences between the two seals include: Question: Which seal should be used: Seal 1 or Seal 2 based off of the above? Relisted by Cunard (talk) at 03:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC). Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 23:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Seal 2 has horizontal lines in the field of the shield (possibly hatching for the color blue) that are absent in Seal 1
 * 2) Seal 1 is full color while Seal 2 is black and white
 * 3) Seal 1 has a blue border around the shield while the shield in Seal 2 has no border
 * 4) The star in the top left corner of the shield is larger on Seal 2 than on Seal 1

Discussion

 * Comment – This isn't about a "black and white vs. color" issue like the other user is claiming. I have no problem with the colors being apart of the seal (although I prefer the blue and white version). This RFC is about the actual image itself with Seal 1 missing objects as listed above. Regardless of the colors, Seal 2 is the correct version per the University Communications website and other publications marked above. One user (ND student/alum) is claiming that the University of Notre Dame uses Seal 1 and has  used Seal 2. Corkythe  hornetfan  (ping me) 23:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

More pictures of the colored seal in its applications all throughout university business. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [](built 2016) [] (built 2014)
 * This is incorrect. There was no change in the shield at all. It has been the same since 1931. The "horizontal lines" are not lines, but are used in heraldry to represent blue. So this is not an issue of new vs. old seal. This image is from 2017 (the newly build hall) and as you can see the seal is colored. You can see at depth in this document about the seal (published in 2011) Seal documentation. It also describes the exact colors of the shield and seal at the end.
 * The black and white color version is used on official documents, while the color version is used more extensively. It is the same issue as Yale University. Notably, the Yale wiki page uses the colored version, because it is more identifiable. This is the black and white seal of Yale, but it is not what is used on the wiki page, which is this , because the color seal is more used on campuses and is more identifiable. The black and white is used only on official paper documents. Eccekevin
 * At no point in time was there a change in the seal or how it is depicted. It has been used since 1923 (coat of arms) and 1931 (seal proper). You can read everything in the 2011 document.
 * As for example, here are seals used throught the university, all of these in the past few years.

The coat of arms and the seal (which are different but connected) are used in different variations. The official black and white one is meant for paper (as is any seal) but wiki pages usually use the colored version (see most wiki pages like Harvard University or Yale University of the coat of arms. As seen by recent (2014 to 2017) use of the colored seal in new construciton and decor, the colored verison is still the most used around campus. The black and white (which is the official one) is reserved for paper documents.

Eccekevin (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that the version in the picture by appears to be a third version with a solid blue field to the coat of arms rather than the tan  (presumably representing gold) field shown in Version 1, although consistent with the hatching shown in Version 2. Looking at the home page, I see a two-color (blue and white) English version with a blue field is used to illustrate a link to a letter to Sen. Feinstein, but on clicking through the letter itself uses the hatched Latin version. Further down the home page, the hatched version is used to illustrate the same story. The page on the use of the seal gives both the two-color English version and the hatched Latin version as options, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to prefer the hatched Latin version over the two-color English version, which the page notes is more widely used. However, neither the two-color version not the full color version shown in the photograph (but not used on the university webpages) is the same as Version 1 here (and currently in use in the article). Robminchin (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking into this a bit further today, the examples on the seal page make it clear that Version 1 is used as the color version of the Latin seal. The History of the University Seal appears to use this (reproduced in grayscale) to illustrate the post-1931 seal, despite the document clearly stating that the color version should have "a clear blue field and a cross of gold" (as in the photo above, except that the star is also said to be white). The examples of the use of the English version also show it used with the colors inverted. There are thus at least five versions of the seal as used by the university:
 * 1) A color version of the Latin seal with a gold field (Version 1)
 * 2) A black-and-white version of the Latin seal with hatchings (similar to Version 2, but without the colored outer)
 * 3) A color version of the Latin seal with a blue field
 * 4) A two-color (blue/white) version of the English seal with a blue field
 * 5) A two-color (gold/blue) version of the English seal with a gold field
 * It is clear that the Latin version is the official seal of the university, with the English version being used more as a logo. Some version of the Latin seal should probably be the one used on this page. The documents cited make it abundantly clear that the hatched version is a standard heraldic depiction of a colored shield, there is no particular reason to use this here, but if it is used then it should be entirely color-free (as on the university webpage) rather than having the outer portion colored as in Version 2. Of the versions offered here, my preference would go for Version 1 as there does not seem to be any good reason to use the uncolored version. Robminchin (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have some concerns regarding the formatting of this RFC. The statement should be "neutral and brief" (WP:RFC), but the statement here is most certainly not neutral. There is also no obvious question to 'support' or 'oppose'. It would help greatly if could improve the wording of this RFC to make it a brief, neutral statement or question that can be either supported or opposed. Robminchin (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hope I've made it more neutral now? Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 23:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly improved, thanks. I'm not sure 'most' is justified as only use is demonstrated by the link, not majority use, and that is of a fully black and white version, not the version with the colored outer area shown here (and which I have been unable to locate anywhere else). The captions on the images should also be modified (or simply removed). Robminchin (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed "most" to current... and reverted my change to the seal so now the description fits the image... Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 03:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted before, none of those publications actually use Seal 2 as presented here, with a black and white shield within a colored border. Many of the images linked don't match either of the seals shown: For Seal 1, Image 1 has a blue field, Image 3 appears to be a brown and yellow image and the details are not clear, Image 4 is similar to Seal 1 but has a blue background and the words of the seal on a gold circle rather than a gold background with the words on a blue circle, the star is white rather than gold and the book is gold rather than white, Image 5 is identical to Image 4, Image 6 has the same blue field as Image 1. Image 2 is closest to Seal 1 as presented here, although the book is colored cold rather than white. For Seal 2, Image 1 is similar except for having a two-tone (blue and white) background and circle rather than the colored version of Seal 2, while Image 2 looks nothing like Seal 2.
 * The captioning of the images, "Version missing objects" and "Version per website", is non-neutral and not factually accurate. Both are clearly (with the exception of the colored bordering to Seal 2) official seals used by the university, while the current wording suggests that only Seal 2 is officially used. Robminchin (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest simply having 'Pictures of Seals used around the university' rather than trying to categorize the pictures as Seal 1 or Seal 2, thus allowing people to make up their own mind.
 * The 'differences between the two seals' should also be made neutral, as it stands it implies Seal 2 has replaced Seal 1, while the image files specify that both date from 1931. I suggest:
 * Differences between the two seals include:
 * Seal 2 has horizontal lines in the field of the shield (possibly hatching for the color blue) that are absent in Seal 1
 * Seal 1 is full color while Seal 2 is black and white
 * Seal 1 has a blue border around the shield while the shield in Seal 2 has no border
 * The star in the top left corner of the shield is larger on Seal 2 than on Seal 1
 * Robminchin (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I appreciate it! If you don't mind, I just went ahead and used the above. It looks (and sounds) better than before. I've also changed the heading of the seals, kept seal 1 & 2 as it's like saying Version 1 and 2 IMO. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 00:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of university seals but I strongly prefer the use of color seals. Whichever color seal is the most official/best should be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I know a couple of current employees of N.D., somewhere in the University's offices; shall I ask them what they know about seal etiquette (direction, do's/don't's, etc.)? Jess (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I say yes, but the only question is how do we confirm what they say? You telling us won't be enough as we don't know if that's what they really said... maybe send it as an OTRS ticket (if that's possible)? Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 21:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'd say even though the colored seal is "prettier", the simplest answer is to use seal #2, which is the official Latin seal per the University's web page. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But the seal used throughout campus is colored, as evidenced by the majority of pictures above, including the one in the picture.
 * Is the question about using the colored seal in the wikipedia article? I don't see a problem using the colored version, but it still doesn't make it the "official seal" that is used on paper. Funandtrvl (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is about which seal we should use base off the "differences" and pictures provided, plus whether or not the versions are correct. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 01:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to draw a parallel with Harvard University and Yale University. Both universities' official seals are black and white (cause they are meant to be on paper) and can be seen here and here}}. But the wiki pages use the colored version, because it is widely more used and more recognizable,, see [[Harvard University|here and here.
 * 1) Another good example: Columbia official seal, but colored version on the wiki page.
 * 2) Also, Brown: official seal vs. colored version on the wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a different between a university 'seal' and 'shield'. This is a shield or "coat of arms" and this is a seal... same goes for Yale and Columbia. They are two completely different things. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 20:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case, this is the coat of arms of the University of Notre Dame, which is colored — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And it should not replace the seal in the infobox. Columbia, Yale, and Brown use their coat of arms in their logos and is far more notable than their seals... that's the main reason we use them in those infoboxes. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 00:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would this not be the case for Notre Dame? A version of the coat of arms is present on the logo, which is far more used than the seal https://www.nd.edu/ Eccekevin (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but isn't a stand alone like the others... they'd be placing it all over without the workmark and seal if they wanted it to be a primary logo for the university. And quite frankly I hate the use of coat of arms over the seal and I don't think many would go for it either. I've argued with another editor over it and gave up. We have the seal, the university uses it all over campus, so let's keep it that way. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 02:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Seal 1: It seems discussion has died down, but I figured I would add input since the bot recommended this page to me. I think it is clear that seal 2 is only used when it is impractical to have all of the colors of seal 1 involved (engravings, large prints like the commencement, stone, single color print/stamping like letters and diplomas). We are not hindered by that, so we should use seal 1. – Nihlus (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Are football/ Rockne/ Gipp & alumni famous at ND or is that a peacock exaggeration??
copied ex User talk:Rjensen.

You have undone some of my edits, without bothering to explain why. Your actions suggest either that you are unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:IG and WP:REVEXP, or that you are being deliberately disruptive. As you've been editing since 2005, the former seems unlikely. Kindly improve your conduct in the future. 149.14.147.61 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not explain them on the talk page--and you have never been part of the editing team for this article. So jumping in and making big erasures of a long=established text is your disruption. The galleries follow the Wiki guidelines--they exist in 2% of the articles, which = 100,000+ galleries in Wikipedia.  ND alumni are a major part of what makes the school famous.  Even more so the football stars that have had many media articles over the decades. Likewise your denial that Rockne was famous & likewise the Gipp quote is pretty far out extremism.  WP: Peacock is about UNSOURCED exaggerated claims, Neither point applies.  NPOV is about including multiple viewpoints--which you have not told us about. Rjensen (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This has to be one of the silliet things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Somehow, football isn't important to an understanding of Notre Dame? Somehow, Knute Rockne and George Gipp, who've been the subject of multiple works both factual and fictional, including a movie that starred a future president of the United States, aren't important? It's harder than hell to view this as anything but trolling. And keep in mind, I'm not a big fan of galleries, but here it makes sense. John from Idegon (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your absurd misrepresentation of my edits is by far the silliest thing I've seen on Wikipedia, albeit closely matched by the claim that editing an article you haven't edited before is disruptive. If you want to seriously address the points I made, do so. Quintupleespresso (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've edit warred with multiple editors to remove sourced, pertinent material and you did so without even trying to open a discussion here in Talk. Don't do that.  If you have an objection to material in this article, discuss it here and see if there's a consensus to act.  ElKevbo (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Pomerium
Pomerium (early music group) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Journal of the American Chemical Society findings
(talk) As was clearly stated in the paragraph that you deleted, the source reported findings published in the peer-reviewed academic Journal of the American Chemical Society, the Wikipedia page for which was also linked. Yet, you complain of a lack of that very source. Being as the Journal is not accessible to all, it made sense to use the news report of it from a legitimate news source. Your deletion and note appear, at best, overly-zealous.Lindenfall (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Why is it pronounced noter dame and not no-treh dawm like the cathedral? The Mo-Ja&#39;al (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Domer, Irish1 and ND internal language / argot
How can any serious article on this university fail to cover the term for alumni – "domer"? As in the internal currency, "domer dollar", and more. And all the rest of the internal lingo of the place? For crying out loud, when you go for a course, you may even be given an explanatory / translation leaflet. And the whole Irish theme is also neglected – even the university ID card is the "Irish1Card". Can an actual Domer fix this? 86.43.118.59 (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring in "Popular culture" section
Eccekevin has begun an edit war with multiple editors to retain material in the "Popular culture" section of this article. As two different editors have noted in clear edit summaries, the information that has been removed and subsequently restored by Eccekevin is trivial. Here are the specific bullet points that I originally removed:


 * In Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005), Brad Pitt's character Mr. Smith majored in art history at Notre Dame.
 * Lt. Walter J. "Touchdown" Schinoski, claims to have played football at Notre Dame in Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket.
 * In the science fiction horror drama Stranger Things, Notre Dame was featured as a major plot point in the episode "Chapter Four: Dear Billy." To obtain a meeting with Victor Creel, an imprisoned prisoner at Pennhurst Memorial Hospital, Nancy Wheeler and Robin Buckley disguise themselves as academics named Ruth and Rose from Notre Dame. Through faking their transcripts and a letter of recommendation from a prominent criminal psychologist tenured at Notre Dame, they are able to finesse their way into the prison.
 * Notre Dame was featured several times on The Simpsons. In the episode "Sunday, Cruddy Sunday" the character Rudy wearing his ND jacket makes an appearance. In the episode "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Guest Star" Homer and Bart go to Catholic Heaven, where there is a group of Irish, among whom a man wearing an ND sweatshirt.
 * In the drama Friday Night Lights, Jason Street is ranked as one of the top high school quarterbacks in the nation with a scholarship offer to the University of Notre Dame, but during the first game of the season, he suffers a severe spinal cord injury.
 * Paul Lassiter, Press secretary on Spin City, Edward Montgomery (Greg's father on Dharma and Greg) and William Walden (Vice President on Homeland) are fictional alumni.
 * The character Sean Donahue, from the ABC primetime sitcom The Middle attends Notre Dame to become a doctor.
 * Li'l Sebastian, a miniature horse on Parks and Recreation, holds an honorary Notre Dame degree.

These are all trivial, passing mentions of the university that tell readers nothing more than "the university was briefly mentioned in this movie or television show." Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia or all facts, even those supported by reliable sources. Out advice for college and university articles specifically addresses this: "Such a section should not be an indiscriminate list of instances where the college or university is mentioned (in movies, books, television shows, etc.) nor should the section offer examples and discussion selected only by Wikipedia editors."

Eccekevin, please stop your edit warring; this is not your article. Both ZimZalaBim and I provided justifications for our edits in clear, succinct edit summaries so don't claim that we didn't discuss or explain our edits. That you disagree with them gives you no right to edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not edit war. Since a huge chunk of the page was removed without discussion, I restored to the stable version while the discussion proceeds (which can not be substituted by edit summaries) in line with WP:BRD. The advice page, which is advice and not guideline, is generally not followed (see entire pages such as Yale University in popular culture or Tulane University in popular culture), and additionally, many of the mentions you removed were sourced and not merely trivial, which is an opinion.
 * That said, I do agree that some material could be summarized (although not removed). For example, many of the paragraphs you removed cited fictional alumni, each with their own line. I say a good compromise would be simply to list them all in one sentence such as "fictional alumni in popular culture include...", thus consolidating and saving space. This could work, condensing and dividing by themes:
 * Fictional alumni in media include Brad Pitt's character Mr. Smith Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005), Paul Lassiter from Spin City, Lt. Walter J. "Touchdown" Schinoski from Full Metal Jacket. Edward Montgomery from Dharma and Greg, and William Walden from Homeland.
 * Notre Dame was featured several times on The Simpsons, including in the episodes "Sunday, Cruddy Sunday" and "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Guest Star".
 * In the drama Friday Night Lights, Jason Street is ranked as one of the top high school quarterbacks in the nation with a scholarship offer to the University of Notre Dame, but during the first game of the season, he suffers a severe spinal cord injury.
 * As a major institution in Indiana, Notre Dame is often Indiana-based media. Li'l Sebastian, a miniature horse on Parks and Recreation, holds an honorary Notre Dame degree while Sean Donahue, from The Middle, attends the University. Notre Dame also plays an important role in episode 4 of the fourth season of Stranger Things.
 * Eccekevin (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do any of those references discuss the subject of this article? Or do they merely mention it in passing? Without sources that directly address this university's role in popular culture - which a handful of those references do but the majority do not - this is synthesis. ElKevbo (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this. Just a passing mention or random connection to ND doesn't rise to the level of meaningful notability to be included here. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 23:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are articles. And again, this is a pretty common section in all University pages on Wikipedia. This one in particular is much more well sourced and concise than most (see Yale University in popular culture or Tulane University in popular culture). Eccekevin (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not University of Notre Dame in popular culture.
 * Three different editors have made the same objections, including one in the specific context of a GA review. Please respond to the questions we've asked and the objections we've raised. Pointing to other unrelated articles is not sufficient. ElKevbo (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just FYI that various other "[University] in popular culture" articles are being viewed as failing WP:LISTN: Articles for deletion/Johns Hopkins University in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Tulane University in popular culture. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 19:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Molly Seidel and Lee Kiefer as 4x individual national champions
According to this article, through the 2014 winter sport season, Notre Dame had never had a 4-time individual national champion. Then Molly Seidel and Lee Kiefer achieved this feet in 2016 and 2017, respectively. However, I can't seem to find anything in the public domain that describes Seidel as the first or describes the two of them as joining the list of 4-time individual national champions. Can anyone help me out in this regard. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is highly likely that Seidel was Notre Dame's first 4-time individual national champion and that Kiefer is the first to defend her title in the same event to win 4 individual national championships for Notre Dame. I am hoping someone can help me find sources for this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is there a reason for the strange pronunciation of the university's name? Why doesn't it use the normal, original pronunciation?-- XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk &#124; talk 05:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It was founded by the French but was long a predominantly Irish college, which affects how things became pronounced. Some of the older folks will say NOH-truh DAYM, but nobody in the institution says NOH-truh DAHM. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Source note
Potentially very helpful thesis for expanding coverage of the history in the interwar period:. The author would later go on to publish a book on the history of the first 100 years of Notre Dame, but I can't imagine that it's as detailed on the 1920s and 1930s. Alas, it's not fully available through WP:TWL, but if one has an institutional subscription then it might be possible to get access to. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the link seems broken. Eccekevin (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me at the moment to get to the preview page. In any case, it's "THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, 1919-1933: AN ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY," by David Joseph Arthur (ProQuest ID # 7415660). — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Boosterism
I am suggesting that there is not a consensus that the article contains boosterism and am therefore removing the label.Jahaza (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a misunderstanding of the booster tag. There is neither is there a consensus to remove the booster tag either, yet that doesn't justify its inclusion. I placed it because of material in the body which contains explicit WP:BOOSTER material. GuardianH (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It requires, like all things on Wikipedia, a consensus to add. You followed BRD. but it was reverted and now we move to discussion. There does not seem to be one, at the moment. This is what this discussion is for. Eccekevin (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This article has an issue with WP:BOOSTER that violates WP:PROMOTION, WP:SYNTH, and other policies. Here are some examples:
 * I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

In the lede, there are two claims which raise concerns of WP:SYNTH:
 * GuardianH (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the second to last claim SYNTH? It is only one statement, and it is backed up by sources, several of which contain the statement. I can see how the last statement might be, but it can easily be broken down into two sentences and SYNTH is avoided. Eccekevin (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect to the SYNTH, the first claim Notre Dame has been recognized as one of the top universities in the United States is trivially verifiable. The sources in the body tend to focus on specific rankings (such as U.S. News, which isn't terrible for this sort of thing but the whole claim can trivially be verified directly with USA Today The university is widely regarded as one of the very best nationally each and every year.
 * In the second claim, the claim of alumni strength is cited in the body to 2. It could be split into two sentences to say The Princeton Review ranks Notre Dame as having the best alumni network in the United States among private schools. And a second sentence saying Notre Dame has XYZ alumni, but I do think a sentence like Notre Dame's network of alumni, which is over 151,000 strong,[1] is ranked by The Princeton Review as the best alumni network in the United States among private schools.[2] (1 2) would work fine in terms of compliance with WP:NOR. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 19:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree, and I think that's an excellent way to phrase it to avoid semblence of SYNTH. Eccekevin (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, I've made my suggested edits to the page. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I endorse those changes, and they are in line with this discussion. I think the claims of boosterism have been dealt with, and I see no further opposition. Eccekevin (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite consensus being reached, and no objections to it raised in over a month, a user has unilaterally removed this. I re-added it and linked this discussion. Eccekevin (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, without participating in the discussion, user has re-added tag. I removed it since this was resolved a month ago and no one has raised objections. Eccekevin (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eccekevin No consensus was reached regarding the tag on this page. Are you referencing another discussion? GuardianH (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Read above, clear consensus. You were asked about specific issues and did not reply, nor contribute, nor object to the conclusions for over two months, hence this discussion sems closed. Eccekevin (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This was not a misunderstanding. Per the tag instructions you were required to initiate a talk page discussion in addition to applying the tag. "When applying this template to an article, editors should note specific reasons on the article's talk page." You did not do this, so other editors were justified in removing the drive by tagging. Jahaza (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Uncited claims are not SYNTH. Jahaza (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article does have some problems with sourcing (it's older, and older articles tend to have these issues as things just kinda pile up). There's definitely some boosterism in the article (which is a shame, because it's the top/among the top Catholic universities in the world).
 * Are there any instances of boosterism that led you to place the tag other than those given by above? If we're going to fix the article, it's best to have a list of specific things to hammer down. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Red-tailed hawk @Jahaza Daniel Case did a GA Review in 2019 that is still transcluded on this talk page. Even though it's dated, much of the material he mentioned in his review persists, and he mentions boosterism as one of the reasons for the unsuccessful review. I think taking a look at his comments would be useful in improving the article. GuardianH (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A factual statement, that is the recognition of certain parties, does not constitute boosterism. There have been attempts at discussing at a project level, and those should be continued, but until a consensus is reached, it is perfectly fine if this page and others use such language. Eccekevin (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A factual statement, that is the recognition of certain parties, does not constitute boosterism. There have been attempts at discussing at a project level, and those should be continued, but until a consensus is reached, it is perfectly fine if this page and others use such language. Eccekevin (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for coming to this discussion so late. It's rarely appropriate to include information in the lede that can only be sourced to one reference so I object to the inclusion of the Princeton Review ranking on those grounds. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * On these grounds I agree, but there were several other sources before that were removed by the user. This can be easily rephrased incorporating those. Eccekevin (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)