Talk:Syracuse University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bias

An anon. poster posted this today:

The University is set on a beautiful, residential campus with buildings ranging from the historic to the contemporary. As Syracuse University is situated on a hill overlooking downtown Syracuse, students enjoy the traditional college feel, while realizing the social and recreational opportunities of a medium-sized city.

The text I have bolded is anti-Wikipedia in my opinion, as it is not neutral. I have changed it... Hope it's better. newkai 01:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RELATED QUESTION: Rather than simply describing the university as "elite" or "prestigious," which doesn't sound very neutral, why not simply present its concrete accomplishments -- US News Ranking, number of Rhodes Scholars, and so on?

Look at the pages for Harvard or Williams, for example. If a school is "prestigious," its stats ought to speak for themselves.

Unfortunately some people keep putting stuff like that in there. Yeah, ratings would be a good idea.

Notable Alumni

Is there a good way to arrange these names? I'd assume alphabetical unless we want to do it by prestiege or make break them up into their sciences. But seriously, Lexington Steel over Stephen Crane? haha --Poorpete 14:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd have to be alphabetical... maybe sub-broken into popularity by... Google results!? Hahah. newkai 16:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be listed under categories. See the Georgetown and Boston College articles for examples. We also need better looking pictures.

Well I started it off with alphabetical. Categories can come later, i did a draft of one, but didn't know where astronauts would go, other than in their own small category. --Poorpete 20:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest creating a new article for Syracuse University Alumni. This list is far too long and quite daunting for a general reader. It takes up too much space. --Noetic Sage 20:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello, a 1997 SU grad here. I have just worked on the introduction a bit, to give readers a sense of the features of the central campus that make SU special. I propose adding a few highlights about SU's architectural features, and on the beautiful, landscaped quadrangle that we all remember so well from our student days.... The University is set on a mostly residential campus, which features an eclectic mix of buildings, ranging from nineteenth-century Romanesque structures to contemporary buildings designed by renowned architects such as I.M. Pei. The center of campus, with its grass quadrangle, landscaped walkways, and outdoor sculptures offers students the amenities of a traditional college experience. At the same time, since the university overlooks downtown Syracuse, students can enjoy the social, cultural, and recreational opportunities of a medium-sized city.NatMor 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Urban and Suburban

How is this possible for the campus location? 67.101.124.102 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Main Campus can be considered urban, the South Campus is suburban -newkai | talk | contribs 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

The "History" section is labeled "(Excerpt from the Syracuse University Campus Plan of 2003)". It is therefore presumably copied word for word from another source and is as such a copyright violation. I'm deleting the entire section on these grounds. Anyone who wants to re-write the history section is welcome to do so, but you must write it in your own words! Angr (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll put up a brief timeline until someone wants to take the time to write a comprehensive history. -PietyHIll

Historic Photos

Somebody's going way overboard with the historic photos... They're shifting present photos, designed to be in a certain section, completely around. I'm going to contain them somehow, soon. -newkai | talk | contribs 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the spacing issues will resolve itself when more text is added to the article, thus pushing some sections down to align with some of the pictures.

Layout

The new layout with the gallery isn't very appealing. There are too many white spaces and the pictures in the gallery are too small. I'm going to change it back to the way it was with some modifications. -PietyHill

The superfluous number of historic photos is also not very appealing. I'm going to go out on the next clear day and take some up-to-date ones. -newkai | talk | contribs 19:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur that there are too many historic photos. The page I am seeing now in FireFox is really unappealing. JJL 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's not only the outdated nature of the photos but the fact they are all of buildings. They're very nice buildings but what about pictures of people - students, faculty, staff, etc.? --ElKevbo 16:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the historic photos give the article a nice level of depth and gravitas (particularly in the history section) but you may be right about there being too many of them. I am really impressed with the article on Boston College and would like to see this article take on a similar form if possible. PietyHill 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also got to say that the historic photos are nice, but seem rather irrelevant; if a photo of a team is necessary, I would think it would be either a photo of the first team established or a photo of the current team. The same goes for both the Daily Orange staff and the fraternity/sorority pictures. -- Gizzakk 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, they make it look like a former university, rather than a current one! -newkai | talk | contribs 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think when Newkai adds his batch of current photos, it will all even out and create a nice balance between the past and the present. Just don't forget to use a wide angle lens.

Well, the weather was miserable all last week, and now unfortunately it doesn't look like I'll be able to before leaving the country for a couple months. So we'll have to find another solution. -newkai | talk | contribs 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we replace the current unflattering picture of the quad with something nicer? Perhaps a picture of the quad with Bourdelle's "Herakles" statue in the foreground?

Another option is to create a seperate history page and put all the historic photos there. PietyHill 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Numbers

I'd just like to point out two possible errors - the year for the first women's basketball game is listed as 1898 and the score for the 1915 Rose Bowl squad is listed as 331 to 16. -- Gizzakk 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the editor meant total score for the season as a ratio. -newkai | talk | contribs 01:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

University People

The main Syracuse University article exceed the recommended length set by Wikipedia. Thus, I have taken the notable people off the main article and placed it in its own article entitled List of Syracuse University People. This follows a trend set by other university articles such as Yale and Carnegie Mellon. -- Shoughto 05:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

University Seal

What happened to the black and white seal? Who replaced it with this horrendous looking orange and blue seal?

The orange and blue one is the new official one I believe. In either case, the page looks naked without a seal. One or the other should go back up.

I agree. It looks very naked without a seal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.9.84 (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Coalition of Museum and Art Centers

Badly written. Please fix and rewrite or delete this section.

It does sound like a mission statement PietyHill 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Daughter Articles

I created some daughter articles under the student life section for "student organizations", "greek life" and "traditions" because the main article was getting a little too long. PietyHill 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto

The translation of the Latin motto usually is as "knowledge crowns those who seek her." (http://www.syr.edu/aboutsu/memorabilia/seal.html). I changed what had been on the entry, "Knowledge crowns its cultivators" to this more widely-used and recognized translation. Dnowacki 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm the one who translated the phrase differently. I guess we will have to go with the widely-used one, even though it's absolutely incorrect Latin; I contacted the University Archivist, and according to him the translation "Wisdom crowns those who seek her" was made by Dr. Perley Oakland Place, professor of Latin at Syracuse University from 1901-1944. Since 1944, "knowledge" has taken the place of "wisdom" but otherwise this appears to be the final word. At any rate "cultores" is a Latin substantive meaning "cultivators" or "growers"; if you want "seekers" (i.e., those who seek) you would have to say "petores," thus "Suos petores scientia coronat."

It surprises me that a professor of Latin would make such an inaccurate translation, but I guess we will have to go with what SU says is its preferred version. Rapotter 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Syracuse University Student Groups

I have proposed that the article Syracuse University Student Groups be merged into Syracuse University#Student Groups. I do not believe the subject, as written, currently merits a separate article. In order to avoid the issue of an overly long article (which is why the article was created in August 2006 in the first place), it may be prudent to merge back only the most important parts. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have merged back that article and the one on "Greek life". If there's no meaningful way to incorporate that content in the article, please consider simply deleting it instead of splitting it out into a new article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Affiliated with the Methodist Church

Syracuse University is no longer affiliated with the Methodist Church. You can't cite that it is affiliated just because a Methodist website says it's affiliated. Although Syracuse was founded under Methodist auspices, it is no longer affiliated with the church. Unless you can cite the Syracuse University website saying that it is CURRENTLY affiliated with the Methodist Church, it isn't affiliated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.238.64 (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration has started

Well, the collaboration of the fortnight has started, what should people do to the article?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've just read through the article, and it looks pretty good actually. I believe this is a very good article candidate to push for B-Class, and depending on progress, we might even be able to push for GAN soon. However, I'd like to suggest that we restructure the sections around a little bit. Please refer to the WikiProject Universities article guidelines. This will involve placing the History section up top, adding an "organization" section to describe the administration (etc), an academics and demographics section (I'd think that this article would have an academics section), a research and endowment section, and clean up the student life section (involving merging the athletics sections into student life, update/reformat the student organizations and SA section, as well as updating the fraternities/sororities list/description.). If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know and I'll try to answer your questions as much as possible. Just a note: this article looks very well written, It just looks like at the end whoever tried to write it ran out of time or something... Good luck and happy editing! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of Fraternities and Sororities

I'm glad that the fraternity/sorority list was updated, but now it's kind of getting clunky. Please refer to the nested box at Florida Institute of Technology#Student organizations. A pull down box sorted by category may be a better alternative to stretching the f/s list so that it is disproportional to the rest of the sections of the article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No religious affiliation

Syracuse University is no longer affiliated with the Methodist Church. According to U.S. News and World Report's official guide to America's Best Colleges, a leading authority on higher education, the university is described as having no religious affiliation. It clearly states, "Religious Affiliation: None." [1].

Please provide a source for your assertion. The official website of the United Methodist Church clearly calls Syracuse University a United Methodist one (see this link). Another source from the university verifies the affiliation with the Church, stating that it has been loosened, NOT severed (see this link). A secondary source from the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities also verifies this affiliation (see this link). Per WP:V and WP:UNDUE, I am reinserting the sourced material. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Anupam. That's what I've been trying to tell User:Ttiwed for who knows how long... -_- - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm always glad to clarify. :) With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anupam, I did provide a source for my assertion. Did you click on this link? http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2882_brief.php. Here are two additional sources that clearly state that Syracuse University has no religious affiliation: http://www.venturescholar.org/portals/index.php?mid=191 and http://www.4icu.org/reviews/6181.htm. Please hit ctrl + f and search for "religious affiliation" on those pages. The U.S. News and World Report website and these two other websites clearly state there is no religious affiliation. How can you say that the Methodist websites are correct but not the U.S. News Website or these other websites? Furthermore, I provided the Syracuse University url that says the University loosened ties with the church with a change to it's charter. I looked up the charter and it makes no mention of being affiliated with the Methodist Church. Anupam, may I ask if you are a student at SU? (Ttiwed (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

Here are two addition PUBLISHED sources that state Syracuse University has no religious affiliation. These are third party sources that are not affiliated with either the Methodist Church or Syracuse University. Therefore, they have no reason to contain bias.

The first source is "The Insider's Guide to the Colleges, 2005," published by the Yale Daily News. On page 662, first column, highlighted in yellow, it states verbatim, "Religious affiliation: none." (Please see [2]).

The next source is the "College Prowler" guide to Syracuse University, published by College Prowler, Inc. On page 1, under the chapter entitled "By the Numbers," first column, highlighted in yellow, it states verbatim, "Religious Affiliation: None." (Please see [3]).

Again, these are nationally published secondary sources that have no reason to contain bias. On the other hand, the Methodist Church might be more inclined to exaggerate their former affiliation with a nationally-ranked research university. (Ttiwed (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

Hm... Are we really going into an edit war over this? I mean it's quite unnecessary. And although you two are really just referring to your same sources over and over again, perhaps you may want to just write that Although SU has claimed it cut ties with the Methodist Church since 1920 (add Ttiwed's sources here), SU is still indirectly affiliated with the United Methodist Church (add Anupam's sources). I'm not insisting that the Methodist section be added back into the article. It's just that I'm seeing source after source that do indicate SU's methodist affiliation even though I recognize the one source Ttiwed's provided off of the university's website. This is a good middle ground to prevent an unnecessary edit war. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jameson, What do you think about this idea? For the time being, we will omit any mention of the University either being affiliated or cutting ties with the church. No information is better than disinformation. Although Anupam cited three Methodist sources that state that the university is affiliated, he has yet to cite a neutral, non-Methodist site that concurs with his assertion. I cited five additional secondary sources that stated "Religious Affiliation: None." Jameson, is there a reason why you only recognize the SU link I provided but not the U.S. News link, the Yale link, or the College Prowler link that state SU has no religious affiliation? I think those sources provide pretty overwhelming evidence that SU is no longer affiliated with the Methodist Church. Again, here are the sources: [4], [5], [6] I understand how you may think that an edit war is unnecessary but I am a student at this institution and, as such, have great concern for the accuracy and integrity of this article. As an administrator of Wikipedia, I hope you can appreciate that. In my view, the middle ground that you proposed is still somewhat inaccurate and misleading. Let's just get rid of any mention of religion for now until Anupan and I can figure this out. (69.180.161.185 (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

User:Ttiwed, please continue to sign in and leave comments, as random anonymous IP posts (as I've mentioned to you before) are very hard to trace just who is saying what. And let's get something straight, at no time have I ever mentioned or implied that I am an administrator at Wikipedia. (Refer to my user page, you'll see that I have a userbox saying that I am not an administrator on Wikipedia, but hopes to become one.) I'm not opposed to removing the Methodist affiliation, however please do not remove the {{MethodistColleges}} tag, as Syracuse is one of the linked universities on the template. Please talk to the original designer of the template and discuss that issue further. In addition, the three methodist-affiliated sources are not without merit, therefore, a new neutral statement that presents both User:Ttiwed's case (along with his 6 citations) as well as User:Anupam's three methodist sources. Omission, to me, is worse than disinformation... and for a university's core affiliation information, it sets a very bad precedence for future edit wars. This promotes page blanking whenever a edit war is present. Let me eat dinner, review your references again and I'll see if I can write something to settle this issue. Please stop blanking any more material before we have consensus. I will revert any changes until then. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ttiwed, your source from Syracuse University does recognize an affiliation with the Methodist Church although it claims this affiliation has been loosened. Loosened means to "become more lax". It does not mean "severed" or "abolished". In order for an affiliation to be loosened, it must exist, correct? The term nonsectarian simply means that the university does not discriminate against individuals of different denominations. The Methodist Church recognizes Syracuse as an affiliated university. Syracuse recognizes the same affiliation. In addition, the IAMSCU, a separate institution attests to the affiliation between the United Methodist Church and Syracuse University. I am not sure why your other sources do not indicate this affiliation. Nevertheless, both primary sources recognize the affiliation. Consequently, there is no need for debate here. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification again, User:Anupam. I think it'll be better if we let this university's affiliation be "Methodist, but Nonsectarian". I believe this should neutralize this edit war. If you believe otherwise, continue to post here... lol oh yeah... I guess it's already Christmas in UTC... so uh Merry Christmas. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome and Merry Christmas to you as well! Yes I agree "Methodist, but nonsectarian" is fine. Since you suggested the idea, would you mind constructing a sentence or validating the one I suggested?:

“ Since 1920, the university has defined itself as nonsectarian, albeit it is still affiliated with the United Methodist Church. ”

When this step is accomplished we can re-add "United Methodist Church" to the "Affiliations" section of the information box as well as your newly constructed or my sentence to the article. I look forward to hearing from you soon! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Anupam, I understand your argument regarding the "loosened ties." However, SU did not say it is still affiliated with the Methodist Church simply by saying that it has loosened ties. This is mere semantics and the term "loosened" has more than one interpretation. In addition, you have done nothing to negate the sources that I have cited. Five credible sources have clearly listed SU's religious affiliation as "None." Therefore, it would be inaccurate to adopt the phrase "affiliated with the Methodist Church but nonsectarian." Furthermore, nonsectarian does not merely mean that it doesn't discriminate against other religions. Nonsectarian, in this context, means that it is not affiliated with any religious denomination. Please see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nonsectarian. Anupam, again, are you a student at SU? If so, I suggest that we go to Crouse-Hinds Hall and simply ask the administration if the university has a religious affiliation. This may seem a bit extreme but it would probably only take up 10 minutes of our time. If the administration says that it is still affiliated with the Methodist Church, then I owe you an apology. If not, then I ask that you not put that info in the article. Ttiwed (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jameson, I have an idea for a neutral statement. Please refer to Duke University. Notice the info box under "Affiliations" and how it says "Historic and symbolic ties to the United Methodist Church, but independent in its governance." Two of the sources that this statement cites to are the same as two of the sources that Anupam cited to. I think this is a middle ground that will end this debate. As for the body of the article, why don't we leave it the way it is and just have it say "nonsectarian?" Ttiwed (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In re: Newhouse School etc The article under Syracuse says School of Journalism 1934. The article on the Newhouse School says 1964, citing LBJ dedicating, etc. Which is correct? Was there a School of Journalism that Newhouse is built on? 71.234.215.23 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

S. I. Newhouse School

The Syracuse U article says the School of Journalism was begun in 1934. The article on the S. I. Newhouse School says it was dedicated in 1964, and refers to LBJ doing the dedication. Which is correct? Was the Newhouse School erected on a previous School of Journalism, or is the original article incorrect?71.234.215.23 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)tayer4573

Pretty sure the building was dedicated in '64, while the School existed for some time before. Could be wrong, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasticbadge (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose a merger of Syracuse University & SUNY-ESF Student Association into this article. The Syracuse University & SUNY-ESF Student Association article suffers from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's the seal?

What happened to the Syracuse University seal above the info box to the right? Can somebody restore it?

Yeah, someone put the seal back on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.9.84 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

L-o-o-o-n-g article

This is one of the most incredibly wordy articles in all of Wikipedia. It's also full of peacock wording. I took a hand at editing it to make it more concise and less promotional. I removed information that was way too detailed, uninformational, or just plain boring. It could use several more rounds of that treatment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.76 (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Student life

Is there no student life on this campus except for athletics and the Greek system? No newspaper? No student government? No cultural events? No student clubs and organizations? No student union? No bands or orchestras? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.152.212 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Too cold in the winter. Everyone just huddles up in their dorm.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality of article

Given the number of SU alums, students, and faculty that are in the fields of public relations, business, etc. etc. etc., why would any of us accept this low quality of an article. I just spent an hour cleaning up what appeared to be any random photo plastered into the article, violating just about every precept of WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Then there's the Greek section, which is just a jumble of links. I spend my time on other articles around this project, but as an SU alumnus (and paying for a son to live in the same dorm as I did, probably with my vomit still in the carpet--drinking age was 18 when I was there), I expect more. Can someone help clean this bad article up into the quality we see for say....Georgetown University. And we need a picture of Joe Biden in the article!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a rambling, excessively detailed, unfocused article. Most seems to have been culled from university promotional material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.24.161 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I like what I've seen so far and I look forward to reading it when its all done! Let me know if I can lend a hand anywhere. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatantly erroneous history

Syracuse University was founded in 1832, not 1870. Please stop injecting your erroneous reading of history into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.144.72 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon user, do me a small favor and look at the seal...on the infobox "Founded 1870 AD". If you remove it again, you will be blocked for vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Under the Faculty subheading: Syracuse University has 909 full time instructional faculty, 106 part-time faculty, and 447 adjunct faculty. Under the Academics heading: The university has 897 full-time instructional faculty and 107 part-time faculty.. Which is correct? (and I assume they change over time, so perhaps they both/are were at any given point. Keeper ǀ 76 21:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like you very much. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Waer.JPG

The image Image:Waer.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Pan Am

That evening, Syracuse University went on with a basketball game just hours after the attack, for which it was severely criticized. The conduct of university officials in making the decision was also brought to the attention of the NCAA. The day after the bombing, the university's chancellor, Dr. Melvin Eggers, said on nationwide television that he should have canceled the event.

The above has been removed. Perhaps it is just internal politics and not notable? I don't feel strongly about not having it but I think it not too important. Maybe it's more important in the biography of Dr. Eggers. Chergles (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it, and I just wasn't sure how notable it was. I'm going to add it back in now, because Eggers handling of the situation was probably less than acceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating!

You guys are doing a really great job here! I'm looking forward to working with you on this. 71.191.7.3 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Crane

I have re-added the following text after Crane's name: He stayed only one semester, later admiting he came "more to play baseball than to study." [7]

This time I added the source, which is a Syracuse.edu chronology. -- Mwanner 15:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Crane's intentions in college were. Completely irrevelant to the list. Add it to the trivia section if you absolutely have to.

It's releveant enough that Syracuse saw fit to mention it. If the note comes off again, I'll remove Crane from the list of Alumni. After all, a person who attended only one semester really doesn't count as an alumnus. Mwanner 21:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Look up the definition of the term "alumnus".

OK--

alumnus. n : a person who has received a degree from a school (high school or college or university) [syn: alumna, alum, graduate, grad] Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

alumnus, noun [C] plural alumni MAINLY US. Someone who has left a school, college or university after completing their studies there: the alumni of St MacNissi's College Several famous alumni have agreed to help raise money for the school's restoration fund. (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

a·lum·nus, n. pl. a·lum·ni (-n) A male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Note the emphasis on graduation. While I will grant that one is technically an alumnus of a school that one has merely attended (presumably for a matter of a day or an hour), surely no prestigious university would want to take credit for an alumnus who attended only one semester. Mwanner 00:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Utica College and SUNY ESF

Why can't we just provide a link to these schools? Why do we have dedicated subheadings for these two particular institutions and not SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL (formerly the SU School of Medicine) and Triple Cities College? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.238.169 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Now subheadings for all of the above. Interesting historically & interrelated still today. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help.

Will somebody please tell me what to do about this? The person OrangeMarlin keeps reversing my stuff:

One - [8]

Two - [9]

Three - [10]

Four - [11]

Five - [12]

Six - [13]

Seven - [14]

Eight - [15]

Nine - [16]

Isn't there some kind of rule about doing this kind of thing? SmoothFlow (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here, and it's not a discussion of your tendentious editing. Also, you should read the welcome message I left, so that you learn to properly format these things. Moreover, most of the edits you put up there are not reverts of a single edit, they are unique cases of reverting vandalism of this article by you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalims? What are you talking about? I know: you are an ex-'Cuse, right? So that's why you want this to shine. Me too!!! ...well, not the ex-'Cuse part (lol!) SmoothFlow (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note this: http://sunews.syr.edu/story_details.cfm?id=4614 SmoothFlow (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not notable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Who does this sound like?

You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others.

Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine.

You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.

Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all—to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as being a dick. <-- ahem

You warn others not to edit war even while edit-warring against them.

It takes more than one person to carry on an edit war.

You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.

Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.

Or maybe you're homophobic? SmoothFlow (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's uncalled for. There are 300 student organizations at Syracuse. [17] All of them have websites. Almost all of them have been written up in the newspaper at one time or another. Stating that this particular one is not notable enough to justify mention in the main Syracuse articles is not bias. Think of how big the article would be if all 300 of them were mentioned. NOTABLE organizations (meaning, organizations that someone outside of Syracuse thinks are important enough to write an article about) should be mentioned, but every school in the country has an LGBT center. Unless there's something special about this one, it really doesn't belong here. --B (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoothflow just called me homophobic? Oh, you have no clue how laughable that is. I helped fund the start up of that organization at SU (yup, this will probably give away my identity, but this pisses me off). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Student groups

This change keeps showing up on the article. It would be nice to mention this group, especially since when I was at SU, the student group I was heading provided a lot of financial support. However, to keep this article at the highest possible level, it is not possible to mention every single student group, even if there is a special reason to add it. We've trimmed out a list of every fraternity and sorority. We've cleaned out a huge list of alumni. I think if a case should be made to add one or more student groups, we should determine if it is notable first by a discussion here that leads to a consensus. Since so few editors are involved, consensus might be difficult to achieve, but we'll try. At any rate, any group included, other than the student government, which is a critical part of SU's student life, must meet the needs of WP:NOTE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

disclosure note: copied from my talkpage

Yes, this addition didn't likely cut the smell test in a broad sense. It's a bit undue and if we imagine what that article would look like at an featured article state - which is a good frame of reference for many editing issues - the LGBT content would likely not be caged in this way. This doesn't mean it is important or invalid just not contextualized in a way that works for the article as is. Even if we "get by" one or two editors who begrudingly "allow" inclusion now ... we need to write for the long term, for our readers and editors years from now. Will the information flow enough, does it make sense, etc. I can envision a few scenarios that may help. A section devoted to minority development inclusion; traditionally the chain follows something like those discriminated due to caste/social class; nationalism/foreign-born (communism/socialism overlaps here), women; people of color; special needs/disabilities; sexuality and gender minorities. You'll notice LGBT folks are usually last in these contexts which largely remains true today. Also some would argue that all discrimination is based on class/socio-economic status with new-money vs old-money as one litmus test. Another scenario would be showing notable event(s) that concern LGBT people and how it fits into the subject's history. Both these require a bit of research and thoughtful writing to weave into the present article. If LGBT presence on campus of the centre itself is quite notable, as evident, of course, by secondary reliable sources, another option is to do an article solely about that and after it's been developed a bit figure out how it fits into the "parent" article. -- Banjeboi 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)