Talk:St. John's University (New York City)

Sockpuppet and Edit War List

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TiconderogaCCB

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=193167229 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Add a notable alum?

{{editprotected}} I would do this myself, but I can't, but shouldn't Ivan Lee be on the list of notable alumni? World champion fencer and all... Zosimus —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't say whether he should be listed, but this is the type of thing that has to wait until the disputes are settled and the page is unprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, it is exactly what the "editprotected" rewuest is for. He is a notable person and should be added, just as another notable alumnus was recently added at my request. DuncanHill 01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Should be up until this weird dispute is resolved. Any article with multiple criticisms inserted in bold, odd claims of the school being notable for the "lack of" various programs, and so on, should be tagged until the issue is resolved. Keeping things to the talk page is no good - the plain visual evidence of a POV dispute, without a warning tag, makes the article (and wikipedia) look kinda ridiculous. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the tag wasn't up because the normal/acceptable version had been reverted to the controversial one. Now, the normal article is up, and the tag thus no longer needed. Huh. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous

True, but the relevance, when another user challenges it, needs to be established, and the facts need to be inserted into the article properly. Regardless of what I may or may not think of the merits of your facts, they were not inserted properly. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to "why did you revert my grammar fixes? also, I think it was agreed upon that these do not need to be bold, and are placed in inappropriate places.)" then "no such agreement made. go to discussion page. ". As you can see in the moderator Maru's statement above, "Regardless of what I may or may not think of the merits of your facts, they were not inserted properly." ToadX 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My thought about the edits made on this page:

---

"On campus shooting, [1] There has been several claims of racism and prejudice on campus. The President of the school had made comments on the "culture" of the school that needed to be changed."

There is no need for this statement in the first paragraph of this article. The first paragraph gives a general summary of the university itself. Also, this statement was already placed in the demographics portion of the article. There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.

"There has been several claims of racism and prejudice on campus. The President of the school had made comments on the "culture" of the school that needed to be changed."

This statement is incorrect and misleading. The only thing the article states is that some students felt the president of the university "made insensitive remarks by putting the blame on the basketball program’s culture" which some believed to be racist since the basketball players were all black. The president of the university later "backtracked and said his statements were misconstrued. “I did not mean it in terms of ethnicity or religion..." He also met with numerous students to discuss the controversy. There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.

"During the 2004 basketball season, the team was plagued by allegations of misconduct, including a charge of gang rape against 3 players. Legal charges were dropped, and all 3 of the players were dismissed from the school and removed from the team."

This information is incorrect. The players were not dismissed from the university. There were never any legal charges of gang rape. The only thing that happened was that a woman threatened to claim rape unless the players paid her $1000. The players had proof of this extortion from video and audio taken with a digital camera which was brought to the police. The woman was then charged with "criminal attempt at theft by extortion." There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.

"They were dismissed, Abe Keita (sp) for example. He went to attend a school in CT for this reason. I was at the school when this happened and am friends with a friend of his. -Ken, SJU 2005 grad"

"Prospective athletes should be made aware of the on campus shooting of football player who was consequently left paralyzed. This was during the second year of the New Dorm's on campus on the Dormitory parking lot" placed in "Campus Renovations"

I do not think this statement is appropriate. There is no reason to address prospective athletes. This does not really have anything to do with the new campus dorms. Also, a campus shooting is obviously not a campus renovation. This is only an unfortunate event that happened to a St. John's student. This is an article about the university. Do we need to list what happens to every student? There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.

I think all of these statements are inappropriate for this article. This is an article about St. John's University. Would you ever imagine finding these statements in another encyclopedia? These are only minor events that happened to St. John's students. Should we list all of the events that happen to every student that goes to St. John's in this article? How about a summary of every sports game that St. John's plays? I think all of these statements should be removed from this article. However, since there seems to be some controversy with removing them, I have only rephrased them so they contain correct information. There is also no need for these statements to be bold. See the history of edits on this article made on December 24th around 16:12-16:30.

--ToadX

controversial edits

I think that the information is necessary. They occurred and even if you don't think that a student getting shot on campus is important or female students almost being raped there are many parents who do http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2005/12/23/News/Alleged.Rapist.Accepts.Plea.Bargain-1998219.shtml [2] . Prospective athletes as well as students should be aware of the dangers that do exist at the school. St John's is known more for it's athletics more than it's education.

Grady Renalds was dismissed from the university. A deal was made where Elijah Ingram was removed from the university (via withdrawal), and Abe Keita was suspended for the season. He later confessed to receiving funding from the school which was against NCAA regulations. http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/11080/index1.html

I havent even mentioned the Lacrosse team at St John's university and their rape situation.

http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/athletes.html

The president of the school made racial remarks and later retracted them. This though doesn't take away from the fact that he said it. Like if someone says "i hate niggers" and then retracts his statement. It doesn't take away from the fact that he stated it. There have been many claims of blatent racism on the university campus, and the presidents comments is just another one.

You must understand that this is verified information and you must give it a fair hearing. Bobbydoop 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Just because an event may have occurred does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. There are many campus shootings that happen on campuses all over the world. How many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find where they list them? Likewise, how many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find that list students that have been dismissed from the university or suspended? Should we list all students that get dismissed from a university or suspended? St. John's being known better for athletics than education is your POV. I do not think this is true. Their sports teams aren't even doing that well.

The president of the university never retracted his statement. He only stated that he was misunderstood and his statements may have been misinterpreted. There are not many claims of blatant racism on the university campus. This is also your POV. I do not think this is true. I'm sure there are many other universities that have more racism on them. How many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find that say something like this?

ToadX 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the racism on other campus' . I'm concerned about St. John's and the disturbing racial atmosphere that exists there. It was perpetuated by the President as well. There are a few campus shootings, but St. John's has one that was recent as well as a few rapes. The public should be made aware. 24.239.149.9 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As a recent graduate of St. John's I can personally attest to many of the issues at hand. First, St. John's is one of the most diverse universities in the country. Having come from Texas, I can assure you that I have good sense of what a "racist" environment consists of, and St. John's is far from it. It is one of the most culturally, racially, religiously, and ideologically diverse institutions I have ever encountered, and as a result, there is a harmony and beauty to the way all these groups interact and seek to understand one another. Additionally, just like any urban university, there is a risk of external criminal activity around St. John's. However, this is not something unique to the university, as NYU, Columbia, Fordham, or CUNY are subject to the same risks. Scandels, if major, may be worth noting, if presented in a tactful and informative manner, and if based on factual reporting. For instance, it my not be unwise to make brief and tactful mention of the basketball scandel a few years back, but in doing so, it should also note the universities self imposed penalties and recent turn around in the program with the hiring of Norm Roberts. Thirdly, St. John's University, has a duty to promote its level of academics, as does every other academic institution. St. John's has many noteworthy programs, and continues to add faculty, facilities and programs to its already extensive network of resources and opprotunities. I think it should simply be remembered that Wikipedia is a source for information, and not a source for propoganda or dispute. Claims, whether for or against St. John's, should be measured against their importance to the objectives of Wikipedia. -TiconderogaCCB TiconderogaCCB 04:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Do you think there would be a problem if you inserted the fact that GWB's Iraq war has led to the death of >1000 Americans, and that political opponents use this fact in their political attacks and criticism into a section called "Criticism" or "Controversy"? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Does campus shootings belong under campus renovations? ToadX 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"In 1997, A St. John's University professor was attacked and left for dead in her car at a St. John's University Parking lot. [9]."

This statement is patently wrong. The professor was attacked off-campus, by assailants with no affiliation to St. John's University. I covered the story for the Queens Chronicle, but unfortunately they do not keep an archive of old stories so I cannot link. Many of these recent edits are wrong and embarrassing.

JACK FLYNN

Sock puppeting

The poster of the above is also the same person as the other IP and username, he obviously just registered that account now. - posted by ToadX

Ironic, coming from soneone using an IP to get around ablock right now....that is also sockpuppetry and it's been reported. --Gator (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not editing the article. I only want to discuss this issue. I am also not trying to hide my identity like the user above. I have clearly stated that I was ToadX using a different address to post since my other one was blocked. I do not feel this falls under the definition of sock puppet since I am not trying to pose as another user. --ToadX

He's correct there, Gator. Sock puppets are only banned when they are used maliciously or to increase a user's influence. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

please take all talks here Bobbydoop 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop reverting it back to your version of the article. While we discuss it, the article should be kept as normal without your added statements since that additional material is the disputed material. ToadX 02:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, why do you keep reverting my grammar fixes? I fixed some grammar errors such as St. johns to St. John's, and you reverted them just to get your version of the article back. I don't think anyone would object to these grammar fixes. It's obvious you don't really care about this article. ToadX 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This was only after you deleted major portions of the article for no reason. Bobbydoop 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete major portions of the article for no reason. The administrator Maru even said that the information was "not inserted properly" and he/she had removed it before. ToadX 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

.

So if I put a sentance such as "Prospective residents of the United States should be made aware of this president's actions which have caused many people to die in Iraq." in a random place in George Bush's article (such as "2004 Campaign"), put it in bold and put a link under it, and did similarly for hundreds of other articles, there is no problem with that? I would never be blocked, and we would need to discuss this material every time I posted something like that? --posted by toadx

Do you think there would be a problem if you inserted the fact that GWB's Iraq war has led to the death of >1000 Americans, and that political opponents use this fact in their political attacks and criticism into a section called "Criticism" or "Controversy"? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

i dont know how to contribute to the talk page, but i'm trying.

i'm learning how to make contributions. I believe that people should be made aware of the good as well as the bad. I posted links that are very important to many groups, especially minorities. I was also trying to learn how to give the proper citation, i didn't know, but am trying so that's why i placed a direct link. If someone keeps taking it off, what is anyone going to learn?

That is a poor excuse. First of all, you've edited hundreds of articles before (see posts from his IP). Second of all, you should read the policies and guidelines for editing. Disregarding the validity of the statements you have added, they are obviously violating formatting guidelines / style guidelines as well as placement guidelines. ToadX 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ToadX is right, but why waste your breath on this user/loser. He's a kid screwing around and now the administrator has locked him out. OG from LA

The contributions for St johns from Ogstrokes and 24.239.149.9 are the same person. 24.239.149.9 was before registration, and OGstrokes is after registration.

can contributions be made yet? i don't anything is getting done. 24.239.149.9 11:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

How can something be famous for a lack of a program?

This same user has been attacking schools, fraternities, and bus companies at Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, St. Johns, and elsewhere. I'm at my wits end. Tfine80 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is horrible. I wish an admin would step in and remove these ridiculous edits and prevent more edits of this type from happening. ToadX 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That would take away from necessay contributions to the website. Potential applicants should be made aware if a school has a program or doesn't have one.

How about an insert stating that St. John's doesn't have any an Engineering program, Medical Program, and football team.

Bobbydoop 19:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a lot of things this school does not have. They (probably) don't have a marine biology major. Should we put that? They (probably) do not have a basket weaving class. Should we put that? Should we list everything they don't have? Also, they do have software engineering programs, and MANY schools do not have medical programs or Division I NCAA football teams. Do we need to list this on every school that does not have them? How many other articles about universities can you find that specifically state they do not have these? ToadX 20:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Computer Science and software engineering are very different. Engineering is a major program. Why don't we agree on putting a section that will allow for this or an advisory warning. You aren't protesting the validity of this information. You simply don't like what is being stated. With the civil right's movements many minorities would be interested in knowing the racial atmosphere that exists at the school. Wouldn't you agree? Bobbydoop 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Software engineering is part of computer science. At almost any university, if someone wanted to study software engineering, they would enroll in a computer science program. Engineering is usually split up into many different subdivisions such as mechanical engineering, software engineering, bioengineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, etc...

However, you really haven't addressed my reasons for excluding information like this from the article. Ignoring whether the statements are true or not, I am saying that even if they are true, statements like that do not belong in any encyclopedia article about a university. There are many other universities that are more diverse than this one that also don't have those programs. Why don't we just list all the programs that this university does not have? The list would be longer than the rest of the article. Adding information about what programs they don't have is ridiculous. Also, the school is not well "known [for a] lack of medical programs".

How about this? Since this school doesn't have a medical program, we should write that "St. John's University does not have a medical program." in the medical article. Just because something is true, does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Like I said before, can you find other encyclopedia articles about universities that state something like this?

ToadX 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Computer science can have software engineering, but that isn't guaranteed. The school is known to not have a medical program. Far away applicants should be made to know this. 24.239.149.9 10:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Universities are comprised of many different programs. While a few institutions are able to offer the maximum array of courses and majors, this is not typically the case. St. John's does not have an engineering program, but neither does Fordham, yet no one would dispute the value of Fordhams academics. Further, even though St. John's lacks an engineering program, it has programs that most universities do not, namely, Pharmacy, Asian Studies, and Actuarial Science. Therefore, a lack of a program is not worth mentioning, and your suggestion that it is a negative reflection of the university is absurd. Would you also make the claim that Princeton has poor academics because it lacks a law school, or that Columbia has poor academics because it lacks a program in Vet Science? Think about it. - TiconderogaCCB

Constructive editing

When making updates to the article, please take care to incorporate changes made by other users rather than simply inserting a preferred version you may have saved locally. My edits to restore deleted information, correct links, make the text more compliant with WP:STYLE, and categorize the article appropriate have been removed several times. I have no particularly strong knowledge or opinion of the assertions made, but will freely observe that both the version of my text incorporating critical text and the version omitting it have zealously overwritten. The recent pattern of editing may result in this article being locked by an administrator. -choster 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) That's fine. OG from LA

The main editor who is making these constant reversions is a vandal using an AOL account. If tempers flare, it is from exhaustion with dealing with him. I'm sure the other editors are willing to cooperate with you. Tfine80 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit on 9-2-06 by TiconderogCCB was to update enrollment information and make a small alteration to the opening paragraph.

As an employee of the university, I would not characterize St. John's as an urban campus. The look and feel of the campus is not much like other NY City campuses. The amount of green space is atypical of NY City campuses. It seems more suburban in appearance. Jamesabenson 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While the the actual campus environment may not seem urban, its location cannot be characterized in any other way. You cannot get more "urban" than Queens, NY. The term suburban would better apply to school such as Hofstra or LIU-Post Oak. I think we could agree that the the setting of St. John's is vastly different from either of these two schools. Though I see your point regarding the campus atmosphere, I think the term is being used to describe its location. - TiconderogaCCB 04:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Centers and Institutes

From the article on Oct 2, 2006: "St. John's University also houses several research centers and institutes. Among them are the Center for Psychological Services and Clinical Studies, the Speech and Hearing Center, the Committee on Latin American and Caribbean Studies, the Vincentian Center for Church and Society, and the Institute for Asian Studies."

A more complete list of centers and institutes would also include the following: Reading and Writing Education Center | Center for Community Services | Center for Professional Education | Center for Teaching and Learning | Institute for Biotechnology | Institute for Writing Studies | Italian Cultural Center

17:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest Catholic University?

DePaul University already claims to be the largest catholic University with 24.000 students, so may be St. John's is the second largest? 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Language altered to "one of the largest" - TiconderogaCCB

Academic Boosterism

Seems to plague this article. As per wiki policy it will be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems

Least Happy Students

St john's university is ranked #6 by the princeton review for least happy students. "Least Happy Students" that lists Stony Brook as #4. http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?categoryID=6&topicID=44

Editing User talk:149.68.148.185 In reponse to your message of

"User talk:66.171.23.248 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, thank you very, very much. Please know that I do not mean to, and I believe I am not, violating Wikipedia policy, which emphasizes contributions and updates with respect for all who contribute. The reason for the changes I've made really reflect only a desire to post content that I hope will provide a full picture of the University. For example, it is generally well known that St. John's offers not only the liberal arts, business, and pharmacy, but also education (its School of Education will celebrate its 100th Anniversary this year) and computer technology programs.

Viewing the content for other universities, the inclusion of a negative statement ("Least Happy Students") high up in this article does seem quite different from the treatment other universities receive. The item in question is actually a dubious item collected from student surveys that often are not updated for several years. (I was able to confirm this with an official at Princeton Review.) Therefore, it seems better to either omit it altogether or to provide an objective but not negative comment.

I deeply appreciate the wonderful, comprehensive work that the other contributors are doing with this article -- and indeed with all articles. I mean only to contribute in an objective way that does add something, that is, a fuller look at the University in question.

Please let me know what you think of this, as I do feel compelled to edit this once again.

Thank you.

````newuser"

The Princeton Review ranking of st. john's university was even quoted in the university student newspaper. http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2006/11/08/News/Sju-Ranked.In.Top.361.By.Princeton.Review-2446723.shtml . Please review academic boosterism and the use of terms like "presitigious" or including strong academic institutions like U of Penn or NYU which are top tier schools. Your ip address is based from St. John'sUniversity and thus will be taken into account. Objective is including 10 ten wired as well as least happy students. A full look at the university includes the good and the bad. thanks.

66.171.23.248 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this information re the "Least Happy Students" out of the lead - where it is a bit of a smack in the face and possibly violates NPOV by being there - down to the "Scandals" section, where it seems more appropriate. Moreschi <sup>Want some help? Ask!</sup> 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In following the wikipedia guidleline concerning academic boosting [3] , removal of the words like excellence and prominence have been a problem. Although statements like "least happy students" may appear to be a slap in the face, it is something that the school has actually been ranked in. There are numerous guides including the US News and World Report and the Princeton review being the biggest ones rate and rank accoding to numerous subjective guidelines. Even the school newspaper ranks speaks about St. John's rankings in the newspaper and praises it's inclusion. [4]. The good and the bad gives a fair perspective. Simply stating what is good white washes history and is unencyclopedic. It's like Duke blanking out the lacrosse rape scandal, or UNLV not speaking about the it's NCAA violations. [5] . St. John's university along with stony brook are notable to have included the least happy students.[6]. There has been no removal of the top 10 wireless ranking that St. John' has been given, so there isn't any NPOV violations. Scandals isn't an appropriate place for the st. john's ranking of least happy students. Most likely a rankings portion is needed. Which is what i'll create. thanks . 66.171.23.248 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued Bias in St. John's article

I want to very sincerely appeal to anyone at Wikipedia who can help with a continuing series of blatantly hostile -- in fact, unprecedentedly biased -- entries in the article about St. John's University (NY).

I have followed the discussions, and it seems that someone has continued to prominently place negative -- and inaccurate -- information about St. John's University high up in the article. If Wikipedia's editors and administrators read the profile articles of other U.S. universities and colleges, you will find that absolutely none has any negative information high up in the article, if at all.

Apparently, someone added a sentence about St. John's being ranked by Princeton Review as having the "Least Happy Students." It was removed, and the editor who placed it there complained. In an effort to appear unbiased, a wierd "Rankings" section was created that includes two blatantly negative items with one positive one.

In fact, if you follow the source, you'll see that Princeton Review did NOT have a ranking of "Least Happy Students" -- this was a section in a larger ranking of Best Colleges. (St. John's apparently is in the ranking of 361 Best Colleges. Within this ranking, Princeton Review looked at other criteria. Therefore, the new item about "Least Happy Students" is pulled entirely out of context without any explanation. Further, you will not find this approach in any other university article on Wikipedia.

The person responsible claims that the "Least Happy Student" item is valid because it was in the University's student newspaper; yet there, too, it was part of a larger piece. The new "Rankings" section can only be neutral if it records the fact that the original Princeton Review ranking was actually about something else entirely.

I plan to edit this, but I need to ask Wikipedia to please address this very bizarre situation.

Thank you,

Ryan Moskowitz 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Ryan M.

ryan, did you go to st. john's? because it seems like you didn't read. if you go to the princeton review link you'll see a numerical ranking. rankings are placed high in a number of articles including Vassar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassar_College . the talk section is for a reason. if you like you can simply put up a review for the st. john's article.

68.175.30.133 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&oldid=121775219

About St. John's University

Thank you for your help. I actually would have logged in for this, but my username, etc., is on my home computer (foolish of me, I know) so I am doing this merely from my IP address.

For the past several days, I have made minor edits to the article on St. John's University (NY) to add information I feel provides a fuller, more accurate, though I hope still objective view of the University. Specifically, the first paragraph mentions only a few of the programs the University offers -- liberal arts, business, pharmacy, law -- while the University is also well-known for its education and computer technology programs. I began several days ago editing this to include the info. However, everytime I did this, within a day the paragraph reverted to what it was.

Then, this morning, in the first paragraph, not only were my edits deleted but a new -- and I feel, unprecedented -- statement was added, wholly unlike the first paragraphs of other university articles on Wikipedia: a statement saying that St. John's is cited in Princeton Review's "Least Happy Students." Citing this high up in an article, with no countering view or information, seems strange at best, biased at worst. There is no similar information similarly placed in any other University article I've seen on Wikipedia. Also, it so happens that the actual citation refers to an often debated survey Princeton Review distributes every few years; while true, it is not viewed as remotely fair by most universities. When I changed this, I replaced the overtly negative statement with a positive one about St. John's being on a national ranking for technology excellence.

I am writing because I really am tempted to change this back to my edits, though without the "positive" statement. I almost feel that the other editor included the negative statement as a kind of punishment. (You'll note that the same editor added a prominent "recent news" section about a financial aid controversy, not included in articles about other universities also involved.) Please provide some guidance with this, because the changes to my admittedly new edits do seem a bit overbearing, as if one person owns this article, and even negative, as if punitive.

Thank you.

-- moskow11@optonline.net

Both editors involved seem to be talking to each other civilly on their talk pages: I would encourage them to keep doing that. The offending statement is still in the article, but I've moved it out of the lead, where it was a bit of a slap in the face, and have added some cleanup tags, and have left a comment on the talk to that effect. I think another Assistor - is that a word? - needs to have a look at this, as The Princeton Review does not seem to be an entirely unreliable source. Having said that, the manner in which it is being cited probably violates the external link guideline, as their website requires registration. Cheers, Moreschi <sup>Want some help? Ask!</sup> 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A link to a St. John's school article speaks about the ranking and the 2007 princeton review book can be found at any book store. 68.175.30.133 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Please find where it states top 100 in the nation..

According to U.S. News & World Report, St. John's School of Education is among the top 100 graduate education programs in the U.S. [7] 68.175.30.133 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A Frightening Situation

I will need to ask for Arbitration concerning the St. John's article. I received a "talk" request from an editor who seems to be responsible for exceedingly negative changes to the St. John's University article -- a clear threat to any organization's posting if it's allowed to continue.

I copied his comments, which I'll paste here -- as you'll see, they seem to be extremely angry and biased against the University, claiming that the article had been "pasted" from brochures. The editor in question actually seems unable to realize that creating a prominent "scandal" section, to which he's added several items today, is itself a violation of neutrality. For example, in recent months, crimes have occurred at a number of Universities, and terrible things like the drinking-related death of a student at Rider. Yet no other university in Wikipedia seems plagued by someone obsessed with the notion of creating a blatantly bad image. Please look at the following item I've pasted from my talk section. (The editor's name seems to be . . . UTC?):

please use talk section.

i want neutral opinions given concerning various schools not a whitewash which is what i've seen in numerous places. this article for a while was a copy and paste out of st john's pamphlets. past that i still can't locate where you are talking about with the top 100 . 68.175.30.133 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there someone out there who has appointed himself or herself the sole guardian of the St. John's article. If so, I may need to ask arbitration to take the piece down. Again, compare the current St. John's article -- with negative rankings and scandals -- to other University articles, like NYU, Fordham, etc. Everytime I tried to add the many positive items about St. John's -- its programs, students, positive press, etc. -- this editor seems to have immediately deleted the info.

Is there anyone at Wikipedia who is willing to assume responsibility for curtailing this negative force?

Ryan Moskowitz 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Ryan

you can simply challenge the sources that the information came from. if the information is reliable than request arbitration. 66.171.23.248 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

here are two universities with scandals sections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University#Controversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse 66.171.23.248 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards the comment from the scandals section that follows in brackets: [In 1997, A St. John's University professor was attacked and left for dead in her car at a St. John's University Parking lot. [9].], while initial reports were that Prof. Shoaf was attacked in a University Parking lot, later investigations by the NY Police Dept. confirmed that the attack occurred elsewhere. Jamesabenson 18:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)James Benson, an employee of SJU

there is a clear bias gong on on this article when it is important to note the series of scandals that have occurred at the university over the years. It is historically important to list these details which are regularly removed from posting whenever mentioned. they are not unfactual information sources have been sited from serveral locations and yet the information is continueally deleted each time. this is blatant misrepresentation on the schools credibility that is represented in the article. this website is a sham!!!!

Those choosing to regularly degrade Wikipedia and this article by reverting to biased and insulting articles are asked to cease such action. The "neutral" article that is reverted to demonstrates a fair balance of opinion and should be the building block for the article. Those who wish to list scandals and rankings at the top of the article are clearly trying to discredit the school, instead of provide a forum for information. Rankings and scandals are included in the article and are listed in an appropriate section. I sincerely urge everyone to take time to properly contribute to the article and stop childish games. Until neutrality can be maintained the "neutral" article will continue to override slanderous edits.19:36, 2 May 2007 208.40.192.194 (Talk) (37,661 bytes)

i posted the orginal scandals section in the page. i posted it because it listed important information about the school. listing least happy students at the top of the page along with bolding other items is a total bias. listing scandals that happend is not. that is part of the history of the school. also moving the scandals section higher then i had placed is bias too. it was listed lower on the page as part of extended information involved with SJU. it seems that the bias of favoring the school has been revered with a bias of hating the school. 19:15, 9 May 2007 205.166.218.39 (Talk)

I have edited this page back to the "neutral version" several times. The "neutral version" lists scandels and rankings as their own section toward the bottom of the article, as is typical with other college articles. I agree with the above. Listing scandels and negative rankings next to the summary is unnecessary and bias. These issues should be part of the article, but in an appropriate section. Continue to revert back to the "neutral version" until the slanderous editors cease their childish games. - Ticonderoga

RANKINGS DISCUSSION (May,June 2007)

There was type of resolution reached. Please cease from the personal attacks on others. [8] [9] 66.108.180.176 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The following was prior discussion on placing rankings (negative & positive) at the TOP of the SJU article. As of 6/25/07 it appears this might have come to resolution. DO NOT REMOVE THE NEGATIVE RANKINGS FROM THE RANKINGS SECTION. The resolution was to keep the rankings, but to place them in an appropriate section further down the article, as opposed to the top of the article where some editors were placing it.-Ticonderoga

academic boosterism seems to plague this article. lets follow wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism DMVGuy 06:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? CAN WE PLEASE DISCUSS THE EDITS TO SJU LIKE ADULTS? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ARTICLE THAT I REVERT TOO, AND YOU MUST RECOGNIZE THAT IT HAS LESS BIAS THAN YOUR VERSION OF THE ARTICLE. I HAVE TRIED TO TAKE THIS TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE BUT YOU HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED. You have refered to the wiki article on "academic boosterism". If you read this article, you would notice a reference to the inappropriate use of rankings to promote the university. It would follow then that using rankings, particularly a subjective ranking at the top of the article, to discredit the university, would be equally inappropriate. This has become absurd. Can we PLEASE use the article I have reverted to as the building block for the SJU article? It has the same information, but more appropriately placed. --TiconderogaCCB 11:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Academic boosterism is not an issue with this article. Issues relative to rankings, scandels, etc, are given proper attention, but are more appropriately placed than the version you reverted to. Please do not revert back to the version that puts "rankings" as the second issue addressed. If you want to discuss changes, do so on this page BEFORE reverting to a version of the article that is intent of slander. 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

are you aware of the meaning of the word slander? please come back with a definition. if something written is truthful it is not slander. rankings according to wikipedia avoid academic boosterism is something that they desire. DMVGuy 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article that lists scandels and rankings has deemed unconstructive and slanderous by this discussion page. The "Neutral Version" should be the building block for the article. The slanderous article that often reverted too, orders its sections: "Rankings", "Recent News", "Scandels", and includes primarily negative information about the university. Under the "Neutral Version" these subjects are still included in the article, but are listed toward the middle to end, where such information belongs. Items such as history, academics, programs, etc., should be listed toward the top of the article, as is the case with most Wikipedia articles concerning universities. Please allow the "Neutral Version" to be the building block for the St. John's article. The back and forth edits have become ridiculous. The "Neutral Version" gives fair acknowledgement of scandels, rankings, etc, but in a more appropriate section, and without slanderous intent. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs)

-- what makes one version more neutral than another? is their a set order as to where informatino is supposed to be set according to wikipedia? slander is a civil charge. is there any information there that isn't true? 64.131.205.111 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

--Then I will use term malicious instead of slanderous. There is not set order that items should be listed, but the order should be gauged against the purpose of the article. What you are doing is similar to stating MLK was adulterous before mentioning he was an incredible civil rights leader. In my version of the article, all your facts are being preserved, but in a more appropriate manner. For the sake of civility, could we please quite this back and forth and just use the "neutral version" as the building block to the St. John's article? - Ticonderoga (Neutral Version advocate)

Civility or downplaying things that go on and went on in the University? The fact remains that the information is true. Order is subjective. 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is neither slanderous nor malicious. It is informative. That is the purpose. Your version is not neutral but pro university. use one IP address, this is ridiculous. I'm going to stop replying if you don't stay consistent. 64.131.205.111 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

--The version I use does not favor the university. If I was intending to distort the truth, I would omit the information entirely. I think it is appropriate to list it, however, it is even more appropriate to place it in a particular section. With negative information listed at the very beginning of the article, the entire article becomes discredited by first time viewers, as a bias is automatically noted. However, with the information listed further down the article, more credit is given to its contents as it appears appropriately placed. I did graduate from St. John's, but I also recognize the need to be upfront and honest about all issues surrounding the university, which is why I do not delete the information. The university has had issues in the past, and those should be made evident to the reader. However, those issues do not define the university, but rather, are associated with it. Things which define the university should be listed first, (academics, founding, demographics, etc), and things associated with it (athletics, alumni, scandels, rankings, etc) should be listed further down the article. I would make the same edit if someone was trying to list the basketball history of SJU before listing its academic profile and basic demographics. I appreciate that a new edit has not yet been made, and I would very much like to see this issue resolved. I do not want to be confrontational. - Ticonderoga (P.S. I travel often, and thus the multiple IP addresses) 5/23/2007 15:00

---

Rating

We just got a B rating for this article! Which is excellent! More work to do and we'll have a featured article! YoSoyGuapo 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just downgraded it to 'start'-class for several reasons. Firstly, the article is largely unreferenced and the references it has do not use <ref> markup format. The article lacks depth, particularly in the history and academics section. There are too many lists and not enough prose. The inclusion of the Alma Mater may violate copyright. The logos lack fair use rationales. Definitely needs some work, but its a good start. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

JULY 2007, Scandels, Rankings, & Tuition on Top

It appears that some editors have again returned to using Wikipedia improperly by putting scandels, rankings, and tuition at the top of the St. John's article. Per prior discussions, these items may be appropriate for the article, but should be place in a proper section of the article, and NOT at the top. See May/June discussion section. Please use this section of the discussion page to debate the issue before making edits.- --71.240.15.84 03:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (Ticonderoga).

Show me where it says that tuition and rankings shouldn't be placed on top according to wikipedia? May/June discussion is unresolved. UnclePaco 05:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The most salient information about a topic is placed in the introduction to an article. SJU is not primarily known for its scandals or tuition increases; even a NEXIS search on the university would reveal this. This information is appropriate to add to the article, but within context.-choster 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Choster here, although I disagree with some of the change of wording Ticonderoga doing. This is an encyclopedia, not a sensationalist news source. Someguy1221 20:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech has it near the top [10] . Cooper Union has rankings near the top [11]. So does Fordham University [12] as well as Columbine [13] UnclePaco 11:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Virginia Tech & Columbine articles do not (as of the time that I referenced them) refer to rankings in the opening paragraph. The other articles mention rankings in reference to a particular program and do not make them the focal point of the paragraph. Furthermore, all of the articles have a much more extensive opening paragraph than Wikipedia guidelines prefer. In addition, tuition issues are not addressed by any of these articles in the opening section. I feel that you are trying to find a twisted justification for portraying St. John's in a negative light. If there is a particular reason you are upset with the school, lets discuss it, but please do not use this article to exercise your frustrations. All the issues, rankings, scandels, etc, are addressed in the article, and a neutral and unbias approach has been utilized in developing the current version of the article. What can we do to encourage you not to revert back to the other version and work with this article as the template for edits? I would really like to cooperate with you on this issue. --TiconderogaCCB 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alterations to student population and faculty numbers were needed to provide the most current data. Alterations to the rankings section were made to present the data in a more user friendly manner, while still preserving the same information. The grammar in the scandels section was changed because poor language and structure was used prior to the edit. All original information has been preserved and no significant changes were made to content. Please do not revert back to the version of this article that most editors deem inappropriate.--TiconderogaCCB 14:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated history section. Prior to the edit the Academics section and History section shared similar content. Effort was made only to report vital information and not to include any content that would give the illusion of a bias. --TiconderogaCCB 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sju.JPG

Image:Sju.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale has been applied to the image per request.

Gunman apprehended at st john's campus

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=74000 64.131.205.111 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Material from St. John's Rifle Incident (likely to be deleted): On September 26, 2007, a St. John's University (Queens, New York) student carried a loaded .50 caliber muzzleloading rifle onto the campus. He was wearing a Fred Flintstone mask. He was apprehended and the school was placed on lockdown for three hours.

• http://www.wnbc.com/news/14211196/detail.html
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_man_with_rifle_nabbed_on_st_johns_univer.html
• http://www.nowpublic.com/people/st-johns-university-gun-suspect-under-evaluation

Current event: Gunman/Lockdown situation, according to the website. http://www.stjohns.edu/emergency and http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_man_with_rifle_nabbed_on_st_johns_univer.html . This may be worthy of entry when resolved. Amphetachronism 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sju.JPG

Image:Sju.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

St. John's University strike of 1966-1967

Something about the St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 should go into the history page. I don't think it's a scandal, so I wouldn't put it there. The strike received national attention, and deserves a mention or link. - Tim1965 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable alumni

{{editprotected}} Can John Corvino, professor of Philosophy at Wayne State be added please? DuncanHill 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 20:39, 11/4/2007

Thank you! DuncanHill 20:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stjohnslogo.JPG

Image:Stjohnslogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sju.JPG

Image:Sju.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect

I have unprotected this page because it appears the cause the protection has expired. It appears there were some issues with edit warring between users. One of those editors doesn't appear to have edited since shortly after this article was protected. Articles should not remain in a permanent state of protection. There have been very few edits to this article since it was protected so I believe it is time for it to be unprotected. If vandalism or edit warring returns, please request for protection at WP:RFPP.↔NMajdan•talk 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be a need to semi-protect this article again, seeing as a number of anons are back to prove their point. Edit warring is once again occurring, and not everyone is agreeing to consensus-building via the Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have implemented another round of sprotection on the article. It will last 2 weeks. Please try to come to a consensus on the changes before further editing the article. Do not rule out other forms of dispute resolution.↔NMajdan•talk 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

To those who have been engaged in the edit war here every last time it becomes unprotected: It has just come to an end. Period. Anyone reverting more than once (whether they or someone else reverted the same thing the first time) may be blocked without further warning, and it will only be 24 hours the first time, and get longer very rapidly. Those who cannot edit constructively will find themselves not editing at all. We have this talk page, and plenty of other means of dispute resolution, available. Use those, not repeated reverts. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 12:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I had a hard enough time just finding any constructive edits within the History, because of all the pointless reversions users keep on making. Is the order really that important? Can't you just agree on some kind of compromise, before undoing any other edits? I would strongly recommend for everyone to stop edit warring, and to communicate their concerns here on the Talk Page. It won't help the article, or the project itself, to have this page semi-protected again. Plus, most will support the disciplinary action explained by Seraphimblade above. Thus, you are urged to not make any substantial reversions within this article, until some kind of consensus is reached. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor - 71.240.28.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has recently performed another blind reversion. As a result, this individual's conduct has been reported to ANI. Disciplinary action may follow. Please do not follow in this user's footsteps, and first seek consensus here on the Talk Page. Collaboration in editing is a vital part of how the Wikipedia community functions, and blatant disregard of the project's best interests is not looked upon lightly. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Most users are attempting to constructively edit this page. However, this has been met with opposition from one person using two IP addresses (150.210.226.2). The edit that lists "tuition, scandels, etc" at the beginning of the article was long ago agreed to be a bias and inappropriate format. The same information provided in that edit was incorporated in to the most updated version which appropriately lists (history, academics, etc) first, but lists scandels, rankings, tuition toward the middle of the article. Please help us resolve this issue. We cannot continue to revert for vandalism in order to keep a rogue editor from changing the agreed upon version. Further, the edits made (that list tuition, scandels, etc) at the top, are removing contructive edits made by several users that have nothing to do with their rationale for changing the article. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. We have attempted to discuss these changes multiple times, but the editor will not engage in a discussion. The agreed version properly lists (history, academics, etc) first, and items that do not "define" the school (as required by Wiki standards) to the middle or end of the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.192.194 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

there is no agreed version nor has an agreement been made. discussions have been made on this users page [14] as well as his main page [15] 150.210.176.218 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the observation that it is inappropriate to blindly undo edits that have nothing to do with the supposed "problem" being corrected. Editors need to be selective when reverting changes made by others, and justification needs to be always be provided for reversion. Please do not remove constructive work of others, especially when it has nothing to do with the editing conflict that you are involved in. ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia articles on colleges & universites do not list scandels, rankings, and tuition at the top of the article. Per prior discussions, these items may be appropriate for the article, but should be place in a the appropriate section of the article, and NOT at the top. See May/June/July discussion section. Please use this section of the discussion page to debate the issue before making edits. The slanderous article that often reverted too, orders its sections: "Rankings", "Recent News", "Scandels", and includes primarily negative information about the university. Under the "Neutral Version" these subjects are still included in the article, but are listed toward the middle to end, where such information belongs. Items such as history, academics, programs, etc., should be listed toward the top of the article, as is the case with most Wikipedia articles concerning universities. Please allow the "Neutral Version" (history, academics, etc toward top) to be the building block for the St. John's article. The back and forth edits have become ridiculous. The "Neutral Version" gives fair acknowledgement of scandels, rankings, etc, but in a more appropriate section, and without slanderous intent. What can we do to encourage you not to revert back to the other version and work with this article as the template for edits? I would really like to cooperate with you on this issue. - TiconderogaCCB --208.40.192.194 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This position seems to make sense. What is the response of the opposing party on this issue? ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no standard article on wikipedia. There also is no agreed upon neutral version. This same user wouldn't even agree to a scandals section until it was shown above that other schools had it as well. The alleged neutral version deletes many of the scandals and rankings as well. 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, how about working towards a compromise. What does each of the parties want to happen to the structure and content of the article? I'm sure some sort of appropriate middle ground can be found. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to relevant information, including scandels and rankings, as long as they are valid and objective. However, I believe such items should be listed toward the middle part of the article, and not put at the very top. Scandels, rankings and tuition issues do not define a university. History, academics, location, etc, are more appropriate for establishing what the university is, and thus should be listed at the top. In an article about Germany, would you describe National Socialism before giving information on Germany' history, location, language, etc? Of course not. In an article about MLK, would you first describe his plagiarized dissertation before mentioning that he is the most influential civil rights leader in history? No. Just the same, listing negative, fleeting, and subjective attributes of a university before discussing the essential elements that make up the university, is just absurd. I have no issue with the other author including scandels, tuition objections, and rankings, as long as they are in the proper place in the article, and that he doesn't "undo" everytime someone makes an edit to his grammar, or adds relevant information to the section. This is a prime case of a frustrated individual, angry at the university, doing his best to portray it in the most negative light, and the quality of Wikipedia's articles is suffering as a consequence. - TiconderogaCCB --71.240.101.148 (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this perspective seems to be very legitimate and reasonable. Let's wait a little longer for a response from the other side. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ticonderoga the spelling first of all is Scandal. Secondly rankings are included in various university articles in the initial 3 paragraphs. i.e.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_University#Programs (catholic school in new york city) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUNY_Baruch (new york city school) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Notre_Dame (catholic school)

tuition is far more important than the breade and life program Uconnstud (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The current version contains scandals, rankings, and tuition. Tuition is only relevant to individuals who attend the university, whereas the bread & life program is a significant non-profit serving a vast number of the underprivilaged in NYC. I think they would agree that it is more important than tuition. However, if you think tuition should be higher, lets work on a version that we can agree on. I don't mind moving it up, but some of you want to only include the section that compares old rates to new rates, without mentioning that that trend is parallel to all private universities. --71.253.38.28 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, if no adequate response is given, can you please suggest to editors to put the other version of the article up while the protection is in place? The current version is blatantly bias, not to mention, it is horribly constructed, contains many grammatical errors, and does not contain constructive edits contributed by several members. Thanks. - TicconderogaCCB --71.253.38.28 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I thought it was fully protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's only semi-protected. However, this does not mean that consensus-seeking should be ignored. Both registered users and anons are urged to discuss changes related to the recent edit war on the Talk Page before implementing them within the article. This is why I think it's important to hear what the other side has to say in regards to the viewpoints advanced above about the structure of the article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Added scandal section to more objective version of the article. I hope this version can be universally accepted, and request input from other users and the "other side". I reverted to this version because it contains the most recent edits that were lost in the other version particularly, in "Academics", "Bread to Life", and "Famous Alumni". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

you didn't add scandals you changed a lot of what it included. Basically you're censoring information.. AGAIN! Uconnstud (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about UConnStudd? This version did not have a scandal section, and Homologeo and I edited it in last night and worked to make it better organized. I'm surprised you do not find this section acceptable.--TiconderogaCCB (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This section includes all the controversial events that were listed on the other version. There were only minor alterations to grammar, and some names were removed, as they were either victims (which shouldn't be listed) or because listing them became so jumbled that the point was lost. If there is something you think should be added, then do so. --71.253.38.28 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, if I was wanting to censor information, I would have made must more drastic alterations. When you edit, you should consider what you are trying to accomplish by the edit. This is an article about St. John's University. It should include relevant and important facts concerning the university. You seem to edit with the prime intent of creating the most negative perception possible by wording things in the most negative way, often not including all the relevant facts. However, I am attempting to compromise by not deleting items that would normally not be maintained on an ENCYCLOPEDIA article about a university. I hope we can work to build on this article in a way that can satisfy everyone, but that will require everyone to be openminded, including the both of us. --71.253.38.28 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

so why is it ok for the duke lacrosse team incident to have the names listed but not the st john's lacrosse incident. individuals were actually convicted in the st john's lacrosse incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal Uconnstud (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add the names, I'm on board. It just looked really jumbled. I don't think that most people will care what the names are, they're more interested in what the event was. But I am adamat about leaving victims' names out of the article.--TiconderogaCCB (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal Uconnstud (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, your bias is inherent in your user name. Does it suprise anyone that a user named UConn-Stud wants to portray St. John's negatively? What if we were doing the same to the article on the University of Connecticut? --71.253.38.28 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

my username isn't the issue. that's irrelevant. Uconnstud (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it mildly relevant that you have an affinity for a rival school of SJU, and are trying to edit the page of SJU to reflect negatively on the university.--TiconderogaCCB (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

that's a joke . U Conn is a state school, while st john's is a private school. Two different types of institutions. Also in the tuition section we should note that many top tier schools have eliminated tuition for those who make under 100,000. [16] Uconnstud (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you cannot be serious. One, I'm not sure what your trying to say by pointing out that SJU is private vs. public. And two, outside of two Ivy League institutions, you would be hard pressed to find a school that had zero tuition for students with incomes below 100,000. However, you would find many schools, like St. John's, that offer extensive financial aid packages that give enough grants and scholarships to low income students to cover their entire tuition cost. St. John's has such a diverse student population, not only ethnically, but economically, specifically because it makes its education affordable to anyone who wants to attend the university. When I went to SJU for example, I had a total family income of $40,000, and St. Johnn's covered my entire tuition, books, fees, and partial living allowance. Again, I cannot understand why you are so ANTI-St. John's...what the hell happened to make you so sour? In reality, out-of-state students at UConn pay $24,000 to St. John's $26,000, yet you're not littering UConn's page with such nonsense, and their average financial aid package is minor compared to SJU. I'm not trying to get into a UConn vs. SJU match, but I am trying to point out that your bias is unfounded, and many of the issues you think are unique to SJU are in fact universal. I would love for us to be able to edit this article civilly, but it will require that we both be open and willing to compromise. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK how about Cooper Union free tuition there for everyone. So you went to St. John's and apparently law school afterwards looking at your contribution history. St. John's paid your tuition, were you an ATHLETE? The vast majority of St. Jonh's students are from New York City or Long Island. Doing that kind of comparision you would use the state tuition to speak about U Conn. Again i'm asking you to stop removing other things that were in the ranking section such as

"least happy students" [17] You simply didn't just go to a "neutral version" you censored information. Uconnstud (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not from NY or the Northeast, however, its appropriate to use out-of-state numbers to refer to UConn because it reflects the true cost of the education. Why do you think you pay "in-state tuition"? Because its subsidized by state tax dollars so that your rates are lower, not because the university is doing you a favor. Cooper Union is only one example. If you want to include the comment above in the article on tuition, it should be a fact that a majority (or even a strong minority) of universities charge $0 for students with income below $100,000. That is simply not the case. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, here is the quote from Cooper Union, "It is one of the few American institutions of higher learning to offer a full-tuition scholarship to all admitted students." Notice "FEW...INSTITUTIONS", now compare that to what you wanted to input, "many top tier schools have eliminated tuition for those who make under 100,000." Quite a bit different. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

new article created 1990 St John's Lacrosse Team Rape Case Uconnstud (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Leaset Happy Students" was removed because it was taken out of context. The ranking was not for how happy students were with the university, but a question about their overall mental health. As such, it is not relevant to this article. Further, St. John's is not on the list as of 2008. Since it was anecdotal, and not substantive, it was better to remove it. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should i quote you the article that says a ranking of least happy students? well here you go " No. 7 on the list of schools with the Least Happy Students. " [18] . so were you an athelete or were on on the band (which gives scholarships)? or was it an academic scholarship? or simply a ton of loans and grants? Uconnstud (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Torch article did not correctly quote the ranking. Go to Princeton Review and read the context. Here is the link to the 2008 "Least Happy Students" Ranking. [19]. You will notice that the rankings are in "Quality of Life" and have to do with mental health happiness, not the students' feelings about the university. -- To answer your question, I recieved a small academic scholarship, but the majority of my aid was need-based grants from the University, not the government. I was neither in band, nor athletics. Can you give me any good reason why you are doing this? --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

the reference clearly states least happy students. that is what you won't even put in, but you'll place in other rankings for the school? a bit biased don't you think? secondly congrats on the scholarship, but tuition has only increased since you've been a student to the point where most financial aid would not cover tuition costs Uconnstud (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it should not be included because it is misleading. The ranking refers to quality of life not satisfaction with the university, and its purely anecdotal. For example, if there was a ranking in which Connecticut ranked 1st that said "Poorest Citizens", then explained that it was refering to Poorest Understanding of Kung Fu, if I were simply to put the ranking "Poorest Citizens", Connecticut, 1st, the impression would be that it the ranking was refering to monetary issues. This is analogous with the current situation. Since the ranking is ambigous and anecdotal it is best to omit it all together. - Secondly. I do not know how old you think I am, but I graduated from St. John's in the past four years, and have had family members apply as a result of my postitive experience, so I have a more familiar knowledge of the financial aid at SJU than you think. ---TiconderogaCCB (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We should note this in the article

In 2002, St. John's University stated that it would eliminate 6 athletic programs (of which 5 were mens teams and one womens team) in order to comply with Title IX gender equality rules. It than added a mens lacrosse team. [30] which had been closed since the rape incident

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2002-12-13-stjohns_x.htm

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-70360377.html Uconnstud (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1997, A St. John's University professor was attacked and left for dead in her car at a St. John's University Parking lot. [20]

In March 2001, Two St. John's University students were shot on a campus parking lot by another man. One man Cory Prince, a St. John's University football player, was left paralyzed by the attack. [21]

"In November 2003, Willie Shaw, a senior guard, and former star Marcus Hatten—in what can only be called a serious lapse of race-profile-defusing street smarts—were busted for smoking pot as they sat in a white Caddy with Maryland plates outside the St. John’s off-campus players’ residence. Three weeks later, Mike Jarvis, the Storm coach who had led the team to twenty-win seasons in four of five years, was fired." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/11080/index1.html

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=In+2002%2C+St.+John%27s+University+stated+that+it+would+eliminate+6+athletic+programs&vs=en.wikipedia.org&u=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%2527s_University_%2528New_York_City%2529&w=2002+st+john%27s+university+stated+state+states+eliminate+6+athletic+programs+program&d=YVXTa3DuQV1v&icp=1&.intl=us Uconnstud (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All of these items HAVE BEEN AND ARE IN the article, with the exception of the Title IX issue, because it is inaccurate. St. John's altered its programs to have an even number of men and women's althletics. The school was planning to add Lacross for some time, and had to drop another men's sport to accomodate its addition in 2003. The wording you have above, makes it appear as thought the university added the sport in defiance of the Title IX accomodations which is falacious. TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)(talk) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

do you have an article to back up the claim that that it was planning to add lacrosse for some time? why would they eliminate it and bring it back? the wording isn't in defiance. that is what it said in the torch (st john's student newspaper) Uconnstud (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not off hand, however, regardless, your text suggests something that is simply not the case. It suggests that adding mens lacross was something done in defiance of the Title IX compliance, and that is grossly inaccurate. At the

end of that year, even with men's lacross, St. John's had 7 mens sports and 10 womens sports, and neither link you provide demonstrates that adding lacross was done in the manner you suggest. Adding the text as it was written would be to misrepresent the situation. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that St. John's misrepresented facts in an NCAA investigation and was criticized by the NCAA [22] Uconnstud (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to write a couple of lines and put it under "Athletic Misconduct" in "Controversial events" I do not see a problem. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

However, also keep in mind that this is a slipper slope. Though I am not going to do it (in order to be cordial) if you begin listing every minor negative refleciton on the university, you open things up for people to also justify listing every minor positive piece of news, and I can assure you that with the level of involvment that SJU has in the community as a result of its Vincentian activities would be endless. For instance, just consider the news events from SJU's website in the past month:

• February 26, 2008

St. John's Mock Trial Team Takes Third at Atlantic Regional, Advances to National Intermediate Round >

• February 25, 2008

St. John’s Hosts Conference on School Safety >

• February 22, 2008

University Closed, February 22, 2008 - Mock Trial Tournament to Take Place as Scheduled >

• February 21, 2008

Urban Hazards Forum IV: Campus School Safety and Emergency Preparedness Conference to be Held by St. John's/U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Region II >

• February 21, 2008

St. John's Jumpstart Chapter Reaches Out to Community in Honor of Black History Month >

• February 14, 2008

Jamaican Playwright Trevor Rhone Performs Inspirational Memoir “Bellas Gate Boy” at St. John’s University >

• February 14, 2008

St. John’s To Host Atlantic Regional Round of the National Mock Trial Tournament >

• February 12, 2008

St. John’s University’s Freshman Applications Soar to More Than 35,000 >

• February 11, 2008

Professor Claire Serant to be Honored by New York Association of Black Journalists >

• February 6, 2008

Craig Newmark, Founder of Online Classified Site, Craigslist, Comes to St. John's for Lecture on February 7 >

• February 5, 2008

“COPS for COPS” New York Shields Inc. Awards Dinner Honors St. John’s University Public Safety Officers, NYPD Cadet >

• February 5, 2008

St. John's to Host African Heritage Celebration 2008 During Black History Month >

• February 4, 2008

St. John's Mock Trial Team Places Tenth at Big Apple Invitational >

• February 1, 2008

Trevor Rhone to be Featured During African Heritage Celebration with Performance of "Bellas Gate Boy" >

• February 1, 2008

St. John’s University Continues Founder’s Week Celebration With Vincentian Chair of Social Justice Lecture and Vincentian Convocation >

• January 29, 2008

Rev. Peter Le Jacq Speaks of Erasing Borders Through His Work as a Missioner During Founder’s Week Lecture at St. John’s University >

• January 29, 2008

“Campaign 2008” Comes to St. John’s University as National TV Affiliate CNN Visits Queens Campus >

• January 28, 2008

St. John’s University to Host Art Exhibition of Recent Works by Former Professor Bill Ronalds at Sun Yat Sen Hall > —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

not a problem, if you can find supporting evidence i'm fine with it. "The former St. John's University basketball player Lamont Middleton was charged with assault and resisting arrest yesterday when he hit a police officer after the car he was in was stopped for a traffic violation in the Bronx, the police said. " [23] Marijuana Arrest by former student Jack Wolfinger, [24] Jayson Williams manslaughter case Shareef Fordham cocaine arrest and conviction [25] Uconnstud (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm cool with the NCAA story. However, the issues you just posted seem, to me, not to be appropriate for the article. Unlike the other controversial events in the SJU article, these the University had no control or power over, and the fact that they were students of St. John's did not play a key role in the significance of the news. But again, if you think it needs to be added, I'm fine with it being in controversial events, and we can continue to discuss it with other users on the talk page. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I am very much concerned about the copyright violations that are being inserted throughout the article. Uconnstud (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It troubles me that you are so concerned. What might we do to alleviate that? By the way, interesting that UConn's page doesn't have a scandal section...maybe we should remedy that. --71.253.38.28 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

no one is stopping you. Uconnstud (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but I lack the disrespect necessary to vehemently degrade other schools for seemingly petty reasons.--71.253.49.225 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This has to stop! 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See above for the root of my frustration. Anyone else would have utilized much stronger language by this point. However, I will refrain from underhanded comments, as it is my primary goal to solve the article dispute, not bicker with UConnStudd. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert Feb. 2008

UConnStudd significantly altered the content of the article causing major edits to be lost. Though there are additions to his version, I am reverting to the prior version and requesting that he make edits to that edition. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Also note, UConnStudd's revert caused losses to History, Academics, Vincentian Heritage, Campuses, Committees & Institutes, Community Service, and the loss of several images. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, I have made several attempts to be cordial and discuss this article. To revert without discussing such action, and to allow so much content to be lost as a consequence, demonstrates that you are unwilling to cooperate in bettering the article, and that your motives are purely to create the most bias and negative article possible. If you want some of your additions to be added to the page, then add them, but to revert to an old article causing significant content loss is just frustrating. When you misrepresent a school, you are not only hurting the school itself, but all the alumni and students who hope to get jobs and depend on the reputation of their institution. That is not to say that negative reflections on the school should not be in the article, but that you should consider whether your version is an accurate representation of the institution, is compliant with Wiki standards, and is an appropriate and necessary edition, because your actions effect the wellbeing of thousands of people. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your major reversion here [26] is just as bad. No one agreed to your changes. You can easily just make the changes on this version. Uconnstud (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My revisions incorporated all the things you wished to have included in the article, with the excpetion of a few disputed items. You are reverting the entire article and losing substaintial amounts of information. Again, why are you doing this? Obviously this is not a consructive version of the article, and it lacks many of the updates to stats, information etc. Please stop. Please Stop. Please stop. This is absurd. Reverting back to prior version. If you want to add to this version, please do, but do not revert as MANY items are lost when you do so. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add what you like to this version. We can discuss the order here. Uconnstud (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your revision lacks SO much content. It is absurd to add to this version, when the prior version contains all the same information, plus significant updates. It would be like me reverting to a page with one sentence and say, "Feel free to add to it". Do you ever engage in real conversion, or do you just revert and give one liners? I am so fed up with this scenerio and I wish you would realize the significance of your actions. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) If you will quit reverting, I will sit down tonight and try to incorporate your revisions into the complete version of the article. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep adding copyrighted photos to the article as well as copy and paste from other websites. Which you can't do at all! it must be original material and material that has references. Which you don't seem to want to do. Uconnstud (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the photos added were copyrighted, I know that because I took them myself! The logos from other articles are in wiki commons and can be used in any article. Again, cease the reverting. If you have issue with a section, lets discuss it. Otherwise, since this is the more comprehensive version, it is the one that should be added too. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak... i think you might need to take a restUconnstud (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw one of the photos at St. John's. So you didn't take all of them. Cease your reverting and add bread and life to the version that i've listed. Uconnstud (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. All the photos are originals that I produced. Further, there is more to add than Bread to Life - Your revert caused the loss of over 6,000 characters. Again, why, why, why, are you reverting to an outdated and poorly formated version of the article? This is crazy. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Which version do you prefer?

THIS WAS A DUPLICATE - SEE BELOW FOR CONVERSATION ON THIS TOPIC - ALL PREVIOUS CONVERSATION MOVED BELOW.

St John's University Original Location

1936 it moved to Queens campus http://www.thetablet.org/03032007/stories12.html Uconnstud (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brooklyn [27] Uconnstud (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bed-Stuy [28] Uconnstud (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Padavan

St. John's University is using its powers to oust a State Senator [29] Uconnstud (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

The name should remain as St. John's University (New York) as this is how it is usually referenced in the media, sports pages, and college manuals. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which version do you prefer?

Please provide input on which version of the article should be the standard.

• Option 1 - [30] (protected version)
• Option 2 - [31]

Thanks, --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

J.Delany agreed to this verions [32]

J.Delany did not agree with any version. Have him report so if he indeed did. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this verion as well [33] 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree to Option 1, the other is absurd. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, someone certainly has an axe to grind with SJU. Talk about POV, moving all the (unfavorable) rankings up to the top and giving huge play to all the scandals while downplaying the importance of the university's other programs. #1 clearly better encapsulates what the university is about (and for the record, I have no dog in this fight, I was just interested in finding out about the school and saw the article was protected, then came to see why). 216.15.40.54 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer option 1--199.224.21.254 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did not agree to either version. Although there was more I agreed to in vs. 1 than vs. 2, I thought that there was good content in both versions. In any case, I think that my suggestions were good ones, and Uconn said above that he had no major problems with them. It would be good if Ticonderoga stated one way or another what he thinks about my suggestions. If he doesn't have any major problems either, then the conflict is over. J.delanoy<sup>gabs</sup><sub>adds</sub> 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

OK, I will break down the list of prominent things I noticed, and suggest possible solutions. Please note that I am basing all my findings regarding content on information I find on the college's website.

1. The number of students enrolled.

This is a pretty straightforward fact, as this clearly states the current enrollment. The article should reflect this undeniable fact.

2. Location: Brooklyn vs. Queens/NYC.

This page notes that the campuses are located in various boroughs of NYC. However, Brooklyn is not included. I would have the article say that the college is in New York City, because the campuses are in different places around the city, but this is only my opinion.

3. History section

Here, I honestly like Uconnstead's version, as the other version is an almost verbatim copy/paste from here, whereas Uconnstead's is (imho) more suited for an encyclopedia.

4. Order of sections

I cannot easily determine what the correct procedure should be. The history section should be first, after that, it really makes no practical difference.

5. Bread and Life program and similar additions such as the section about "Vincentian Heritage"

These sections seem to be verbatim copy/pastes from the college's website, and probably should be articles in their own right, if they are notable. Either way, they should be paraphrased to be encyclopedic, or they should be deleted. Otherwise, they are plagiarism.

6. Images in sports section

The copyrighted Madison Square Garden should probably be removed, as appropriate fair-use rationale probably could not be established for it. However, the other images are, imho, fine, as they give constructive commentary on the section and make it more visually appealling.

7. The Torch

In my opinion, this section is fine, although it may be extraneous. In my opinion. the optimal situation would be for the section to be expanded and made into it's own article.

8. Alumni

If the people Ticonderoga has added to this section have their own articles, leave them there. If not, remove them. No red links. The note about the one player being "key in the something brawl" is extraneous. If readers wonder who he is, they can click the link and find out.

9. Categories and stuff near that

The education in queens category seems more appropriate. Also, don't remove the links starting with "de:", "fr:", "it:", etc. These link to equivalent articles in other language Wikipedias and are usually added by bots. Do not remove them. Check the sidebar where it says "this page in other languages" and make sure all the links are functional.

Hopefully, that helps some. I wish I could respond to your comments immediately, but I have to go to work like RIGHT NOW, so I will probably not be able to come back here very soon. Either way, PLEASE!!! Do not keep reverting each other as that will only get you blocked.

J.delanoy<sup>gabs</sup><sub>adds</sub> 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem with what j delanoy stated Uconnstud (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

1- fix as stated
2- I provided links above which show that the school started in Brooklyn. It is no longer located in brooklyn. It's primary campus is in jamaica queens.
3- My history section isn't a direct copy and paste I agree with what j.delanoy stated. In fact I believe it was stated earlier on the talk page that the current version is a copy and paste.
4- Since no determination is made on the order we should continue discussing that.
5- I agree make bread and life into their own pages or summarize them. They are right now plagurism. They need to be revised.
6- The msg picture isn't fair use. It should be deleted. As should the st john's poem on the page and the big east logo
7- the torch is fine. maybe we can make our own article about it.
8- I agree, but Red links may be necessary b/c some people aren't famous in their own right.
9- Agree as stated.
Uconnstud (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)