User talk:DCHoya

License tagging for Image:Seal original 200.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Seal original 200.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Georgetown banner
Shouldn't the McDonough School of Business page have the McDonough logo as opposed to the general Georgetown logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatnow12 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgetown criticism
Hey, about the first paragraph of Georgetown University, just so you know, I've reverted this sort of edit recently, mostly because I don't think we need that much detail and criticism in the summary, but also because I don't have sources for that. I really haven't seen "more orthodox Catholics questioning Georgetown's commitment to Church doctrine". Besides the Cardinal Newman Society, I just don't know who these Catholics are, or what doctrine Georgetown might be violating. You can look to see if the hospital's stem cell research was ever criticized, but I think even that was closely adhering to "doctrine".

Most importantly, we need a source that can mention not only a specific even, but several to make it worthy of being noted. Some of the articles referenced in the "Jesuit tradition" section do mention the repeated criticism of Georgetown's endorsement of Catholic views, which is how that got into the summary. Now, we do have an article about Cardinal Newman Society criticizing some Georgetown's faculty in 2005, and a sentence about that might go well next to the one about political giving, but still I don't think it goes in the summary. Thoughts?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll admit I don't like having the criticism up there either, but we've tried to keep some in because its very tough to get an article to Featured Article status without recognizing some criticism up front like that. That's just something other editors look for, and even so we got accused of being a mouthpiece for the school. I'm suggesting that there's a shorter way to describe the middle road that Georgetown tries to walk, and propose this wording: "The university's mixed endorsement of Catholic and secular viewpoints have caused controversy at times." Thoughts?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)