User talk:Misc11

Welcome!
Hello Misc11, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. I'm a regular user on the Georgetown University page, and am concerned that a featured article isn't necessarily the best place to be experimenting on Wikipedia, since those have gone through more revisions and examinations than other articles, so try to keep that in mind while editing, thanks! --Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I don't want to bite, but there are a lot of standards governing articles when they get up to that level. Standards like ALT Text, which you removed repeatedly, or for not using image sizes, or for not using tables like you added for the alumni, or for how to format complete references. There are valuable updates you made today, but I'm going to have to change other things back. Why remove the mention of Healy in the intro? What discussion are you referrecing? Why remove the sports teams, that's something a lot of users have told us, the other editors there, that we need to have.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 03:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not appreciate you blank-reverting my edits with an excuse that they do not match the format. If there is something off in the formatting, you being a dedicated editor should feel free to rectify it.


 * As for Healy's status as a slave, this is disputed on his page talk section; in fact, the mere notion that he was considered anything but white at that time is disputed and I honestly do not see how this is essential.


 * As for the Hoyas team name, I think it is irrelevant in the into section especially when its already in the info box. Same story with basketball victories. Look at pages of universities that Georgetown considers to be its peers, none of this garbage appears there.


 * As for mentioning that Georgetown is co-ed, did you seriously have to revert this? Do we live in the middle ages that you have to note that this university is co-ed? I have only seen non-co-ed institutions being noted as they are the exception and not us.--Misc11 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not revert your edits, and, as I said I would, kept many of your contributions, but if you're going to accuse me of "blank-reverting", then don't go doing it yourself. I don't own the article, I've just worked on it for five years, kept it at Featured Article status, and watched many new editors make the same mistakes again and again. Take this edit: First, images in the prose shouldn't have pixel sizes, second, they should have ALT text, third, captions don't need to describe the background, and fourth, there was a misspelling. Beyond that, there's an issue with encyclopedic tone. How am I to cite "even as its influence is relatively limited", or "despite the controversial nature of this practice", or "Another point of contention between various groups"? These sorts of sweeping statements can't be used in an encyclopedia.


 * I also don't look to Cornell or Columbia for guidance in layout. Neither is a Featured Article, and instead I look to the universities that are. Most all of them mention athletics in the lead, something I would expect in a summary, and something we were requested to do in the GAR. None of the UNI FAs have a template with photos of famous alumni, in part because we do have a separate article where those pictures can be seen. We also don't need in-line references in the intro, if we have them below. One of the ones below, from the Library of Congress, is where the statement "born a slave by law" comes from. There are two posts on Talk:Patrick Francis Healy, one 5 years old, the other 3, and both are about his status as an African American, not about antebellum Georgian law. Thanks!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with refs in the into; Dartmouth page has them. In addition, I see nothing that forbids the use of background descriptions for context. And by the way, how bad was the misspelling that one could not correct it without reverting everything? I think you are just looking for excuses. --Misc11 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I have never "reverted everything" or "abused the undo button", and had again integrated many of your contributions before you reverted my one edit, which, among other things, fixed a broken reference. By reverting mine, you actually removed this. There is nothing wrong with having references in the intro, just that they're not necessary when the item is referenced below. But if you're adding text to the intro that does need referencing, you might consider if its necessary in that section. Good captions are only supposed to mention the subject of the image. What does the proximity of the Pentagon have to do with the "Research" subsection? Readers can click on the photo to read a more fuller description of its contents. There was also a long discussion last year about the introduction, and how to mention Healy.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A school does not have to be governed by the church to be Catholic. Most Jesuit schools aren't governed that way. CUA is an example of one that is "pontifical". It seems you disagree with this position, and that's fine, but everything the school publishes states its affiliation, and we need to respect that. John Carroll himself ceased to be a Jesuit in 1773, when the Pope banned the order, and unlike other ex-Jesuits, Carroll never actually rejoined the group after its restoration. I've tried hard to flesh out the affiliation in the prose. I also think some of those images would better go on a page like History of Georgetown University.


 * There's also an issue with being boastful. The University style guide is one of the places that the provision against peacock terms is explained. A Statement like "Georgetown is one of the earliest post-colonial institutions of higher learning in the United States" isn't going to be citable, and sounds like the puffery that we need to avoid. As for the term "research", its one I've felt was self-explanatory, like "co-education".-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said that it was not Catholic; in fact, that part of the info box stayed the same. I merely added some clarification. As for your accusations that my statements are boastful, I am not going to downplay historical facts - i.e.that it is in fact one of the earliest post colonial colleges - as this gives readers a valuable context.(If I said that it is "one of the leading" or "one of the most important" or "one of the most significant" universities of post-colonial America, that would be a different story).


 * As for the images I have added, John Carroll's portrait could go to history page but I'm afraid it is already there; the proposal document, on the other hand, I find very important for the into. I thought it would be better to have something relatively contemporary rather than a 21c. photograph of Carroll's statue.--Misc11 (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey again, I wasn't sure if you were had any relation to User:Droebiti on the Commons, but I'm having some doubts that the new photos of Healy, Lauinger, and Dahlgren were really copyright free. The images look too professional, plus their small pixel sizes and lack of metadata make me suspect they come from online. Most of all, the one of Dahlgren comes up positive on a TinEye search. Any chance you can help out on this?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 22:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just checked TinEye and I did find Dahlgren chapel. When I clicked on the link, however, I received an error saying the page was not found. Sometimes photos and articles from wikipedia are used on personal blogs so my best guess is that it was deleted.--Misc11 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Archive.org has a cached version of the Chronicle of Higher Ed page from April 28, 2009, and the Dahlgren image is visible. This is long before the file was uploaded on June 19, 2011. It's also on another site, and has been since at least February 8, 2008. Sorry if I'm confused, but it does look like you're the user that uploaded these files because of the short time between their upload and use on the article.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 20:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro
As I said in the edit summary, there were some factual issues with edits to the introduction. We can't say whether a majority of the students at Georgetown are or are not Catholic. The "Student Commission for Unity" did a voluntary survey of around 1,800 undergraduates to get the numbers that we used in the "Student life" section, but prior to that we had numbers from a Chronicle of Higher Ed story from 2000 which listed 58% of the student body as being Catholic. Even if it is below 50%, you'd need to specify as we do in that section, with something like "less than a majority of students responded by identifying as Catholic to a 2009 survey...", and I don't think we want to do that in the introduction.


 * I - I agree with what you are saying but I think the changes you made before - for example, saying that the university defines its identity in significant part through its religious identity - suggested that Catholicism at Georgetown plays a bigger role than it really does. True that it is a Jesuit school but besides its founding and couple of crucifixes and Jesuits here an there, I honestly do not see how Georgetown is significantly defined by its religion. Even theology courses required can be just about any religion. I favored including student body statistics to balance out the introduction which in previous versions suggested, at least to those who are less informed, as if the school was like Notre Dame. So in conclusion, I do not care to have student composition in the intro per se, but I would not want to portray Georgetown as somewhat cliquish when it's in fact  pretty cosmopolitan;mentioning that it attracts students from various backgrounds does not quite help this because every school these days can claim that to one degree or another.

Additionally, teachers and students aren't actually promised "complete academic freedom". I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think we can put that in writing here on Wikipedia. Professors certainly do enjoy a great deal of freedom, but have in the past been let go following pressure from conservative or liberal groups. Douglas Feith being one that comes to mind. If you want, we can state in the Faculty section that "Georgetown endorses the American Association of University Professor's 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with limitations based on Georgetown University's own code of responsibilities."


 * II - Well, as I remember you included this so I thought this was part of the compromise between the two versions. I think we can assume that a school of Georgetown's caliber does grant academic freedom so no need to mention. In any case, Douglas Feith cannot be used as a good example because reasons behind non-renewal of his 2 year term are on the level of rumors at best.

Lastly, we can state that the school has been criticized by conservative groups, but this has typically been for the decision to host certain speakers or events like the Vagina Monologues, rather than some vague "failure to advance church doctrines." And if we mention criticism from one side, we should also mention criticism from the other. Make sense?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * III - "Advance church doctrines" was also not my wording but I let it stand as I thought its purposes was to give a balanced image of Georgetown.--Misc11 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, several of the problematic items I was trying to change were originally added by User:Feis-Kontrol. I explained the reasoning here after you reverted most of my edits. I agree that modern Georgetown should not be confused with some concept of a strict moralistic school from the Victorian Era, but Georgetown is typical of what a "Catholic school" is today, and I don't see the need to go into such detail in the intro about its pluralistic environment by explaining that it isn't pontifical, or the students/professors aren't all Catholic, or how conservative groups don't think its Catholic enough, and on and on. I think that if we can just mention how Georgetown celebrates its religious heritage, that should be enough. And most of all, that can be sourced.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it will be sufficient to say that the Jesuits are involved in the school administration and that the school celebrates its religious heritage but that it is governed independently of any church or religious order, with no attempts to measure whether the Jesuit heritage plays a significant or insignificant role in present-day Georgetown (at least not in the into).--Misc11 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Georgetown University ranking
Template:Infobox Georgetown University ranking has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Eustress talk 01:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Famous Georgetown University Alumni
Template:Famous Georgetown University Alumni has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)